‘Just stop buying lattes’: The origins of a millennial housing myth
thehustle.co
thehustle.co
Problems of that scale cannot be tackled by changing individual spending. You could move somewhere else (if you can actually afford to do so), but the problem is not limited to one region.
It obviously does not. The cost to purchase an entire house and the land it sits on is at that multiple or slightly more. The cost to merely use the median rental for a year is under the median income.
Where is this magical place?
They are also are ignoring inflation and all the companies using the Ukraine war and the lockdown to justify the price multiples.
While all are hitting record profits.
Rent, not mortgages, has gone up from 1k to 2.5k here. For a one bedroom apartment. Minimum wage here will get you ~2k/mo.
Minimum wage doesn't come close to hitting rents, especially when they have insane demands like you must make 4x the rent to even apply.
It's hilarious that landlords were crying they couldn't rent their places out because of coronavirus, then they increased their rents 2-4x, the places are still empty- as are the houses for sale, yet they seem fine with empty property now.
I'd always laugh at the articles saying there wasn't a grand exodus from California, as I see it every day. Still to this day, just not as many.
Where did they go? Texas for the most part. And what happened to Austin? Priced locals out. Now those Texans are moving, but not here, they can't afford the exorbitant prices of everything ($7/gal for gas!).
Many Texans are still making $7.25/hr. How tf can anyone afford to live with that? Cell phones cost the same, power costs the same, rent is getting there, internet costs the same as here in California where at least minimum wage is ~$15/hr.
Poor people have been getting shit on since before the pandemic but now it's just evil what's happening.
A few posts ago, it was "median rent costs double (or tripple, or more) the median income". Now, it's "rent is about the same as minimum income" (which is still a problem, but nowhere near the same thing as the prior claim).
Sadly this time there is no "New World" to flee to for economic prosperity. This whole middle class thing might have been an anomalous blip?
Wait till they bring Jira and Agile to your tech job, though. You'll find yourself "needing" expensive toys again.
Still, with that background, I do notice things... Like e.g. someone I know who grew up lower middle class in America (n=1, admittedly) being surprisingly oblivious of prices in the grocery store. Buying $7 artisanal ice-cream when $3 ice-cream is just as good - it's literally $100/mo right there, just on one item. Sure, they can easily afford it now, but I wonder if the notion that it costs $100/mo even crosses their mind in any way. I see people who look like they are homeless (there's a big extremely-affordable-housing apartment building next to the store) buying fancy beer... when I was poor I was drinking Bud Light equivalent ;) I am only slightly judging - to each their own, but then, it might indeed cramp your spending elsewhere.
* When the first cars started killing people -> make jaywalking a crime.
* When people take on too much credit card debt -> obviously a problem with financial literacy
* When large companies destroy the environment -> if people just recycled more we could save the planet...
* You're broke in 1990 -> why didnt you get a degree?
* you're broke in 2000 with a degree -> why didnt you get a STEM degree?
* you're broke in 2010 with a STEM degree -> why didnt you get a compsci degree?
* You're broke in 2020 with a compsci degree -> tsk you should have done something useful like machine learning.
* Global warming -> Stop using your car and planes
* Plastics everywhere -> Just stop using plastic straws and bags, that will fix it!
...i know, i know right... why didnt I just take personal responsibility and not take a job at a horrible company that pollutes? Thats how I could do my bit.
Being an environmentalist 5th column is probably the way to go, actually.
According to the investment/FIRE communities and Thomas Piketty's study, yea, you're better off siphoning off taking the fruits of others' work via "the magic of compounding".
Well blaming others for your problems and leeching off society for income isn’t going to get you very far.
Basically, these things look anti-inductive.
Also:
* You're broke in 2030 with a machine learning degree -> you should have been born a robot.
> * you're broke in 2000 with a degree -> why didnt you get a STEM degree?
> * you're broke in 2010 with a STEM degree -> why didnt you get a compsci degree?
> * You're broke in 2020 with a compsci degree -> tsk you should have done something useful like machine learning.
LOL. I like it. reads a bit like "First they came for the..."
As a "not broke yet" (by British standards) computer scientist, having jumped all these hoops and many more, I'm just wondering what the next ominous step is?
I fear this ends like:
You're broke in 2048 with a CS degree, PhD in DSP and a successful research career in signals and systems - because you didn't throw all human values to the wind and join a cabal of psychopathic technical elites hell-bent of subverting the entirety of science and technology to an infantile, omnipotent project of world-domination that ultimately added no value, screwed the entire planet and human race.
(and for those also with PhDs in ML/DSP smugly working for the Empire, and thinking "I'm safe", your turn comes when abject obedience is insufficient to save you from the sinking ship)
Still, being frugal is not a bad advice and will definitely help you save money.
What's the mental health cost though?
That latte or that luxury item can be what keep you sane in a world that become increasingly worse.
Lattes, pr0n, weed, alcohol. They definitely have their pro and cons, but they may be needed at certain times of your life. If they start ruining your life, seek help.
Buy lattes and consider moving to where housing supply is not constrained.
You can also inherit one, rent something or move where houses are cheaper. I'm not sure about the level of your irony so I clarify.
I wish it were that easy to grind this economy to a halt, but it doesn't really work that way. Consumer shortfalls cause hiccups in the system, but the ruling class is still making steady progress on its mission to reduce the rest of us to generational peonage. You can boycott Black Friday, but so long as you have to show up for work to survive, the bad guys are going to keep winning.
Remote work may somewhat alleviate the problem, though it will take time and it won't dissappear entirely.
My colleagues used to commute in by train from two hours away each day, but I'm guessing they're leaning heavily into remote work now.
There's nice areas in the UK which are dying because everyone wants to live in some metropolitan area. It's a real pity, but I can't see the trend reversing anytime soon.
Maybe because
> My colleagues used to commute in by train from two hours away each day
?
If it's effectively impossible to find housing in San Francisco at a price that a barista can afford, and you're OK with that, then you're saying it's OK for San Francisco to have no baristas. (Or for baristas to be homeless.)
But on a micro level, you can't get around the fact that if you spend $50 on lattes a month, and then you stop doing that, you will have $50 more per month.
And if you spend $50 on buying a luxury brand shirt rather than a $10 shirt, you have $40 less.
If you DON'T spend $50 on lattes, then obviously you can't save that money.
Anything else is self flaggelating excuses about why you need to buy lattes, and why capitalism is bad, and an excuse for your status games or your consumer desires. Fact is, if you buy lattes, you can save that money instead.
But btw, $50 a month means $50 extra you can spend on mortgage payments, which can actually add a couple of thousand dollars to your budget potentially.
I find extremely dishonest and patronising to suggest that people can’t buy houses because they spend too much on avocados or Netflix. Even if one spent 5000£ a year on these, which is an order of magnitude too high for the average earner, it’s still going to take them 40 years of monastic life to save 200K£.
I’m out of that infernal loop only because a few years ago my salary jumped above 250K£ and I’ve made 200-300K£, after tax, in a single year when my employer did its IPO. Let’s not pretend that the average person can buy a half decent family home in a decent part of the UK just by working hard and giving up lattes.
I did acknowledge that if this doesn't apply to you, then it doesn't apply to you. Yes somewhere like London I imagine this might be true, although looking at the amount of people in lines in coffee shops and lunch places spending £15-20 on lunch, a lot of people it DOES apply to.
If you find it impossible, and the math doesn't work, fine. But I think a lot of people use articles like this as an excuse to never be frugal in any way.
They may live more frugal lives, and feed themselves with close to expiration Tesco sandwiches that cost 0.01£ (why, it’s left as an exercise), but it won’t help them getting out of poverty and renting (which in itself is a form of poverty in a country where tenants can and are routinely evicted for asking repairs).
So it’s not impossible to live a more frugal life and save 5£ a day, which is less than 2000£ a year, it’s pointless if the price of the average house increases by 7-8% a year. What is one doing this for? To please the editor of the Daily Telegraph who complains about millennials?
The only way out for the individual is to earn more or to enjoy a lottery-like event, such as my company going public. The collective way out will probably require political action, of what kind I don’t know nor I care. But we can’t pretend that the better educated generation in the entire history of mankind can’t buy houses because they can’t budget and spend too much on avocados and takeaways.
How is going back to the office forcing you to buy £15 lunches? You don't have to even eat Tesco sandwiches. Believe it or not my parents made their own sandwiches at home, which probably has a cost of around £1 for a lunch. So you can save £10-14 on lunch. And they might actually be tastier, but again, needs personal input and work.
And your math is completely off again. £2000 per year is £20,000 in 10 years, plus interest you might have £25-30k. And you can save way more than £5 a day, easily if you actually - ACTUALLY - pay attention and have personal control.
That's getting close to a deposit on a house.
You can go as far as only paying for a train ticket to get to work and rent the smallest flat in zone 4. Even assuming that you manage to survive on 40£ per day including rent (that in London buys you the lifestyle on a European agricultural worker in 1800), and that you earn an average income (35K£), you won’t save more than 1000£ per month. Which is 12K£ per year, which barely matches the average price increase of properties in London. If you earn 90K£ per annum, with this miserable lifestyle you can save 3800£ per month, which is 45K a year. So living the most miserable lifestyle possible, somebody in the 90th percentile of the income distribution, can put down a deposit to buy a 2-bed flat after 3-4 years, assuming prices stop spiralling out of control.
Considering that a millennial should live like a miserable for decades to buy a 2-bed flat that their parents could buy with a few years of savings while having normal lives, I find it extremely out of touch to claim that an entire generation (the better educated in the history of mankind, I repeat) can’t buy homes because they can’t manage their budgets.
> And your math is completely off again. £2000 per year is £20,000 in 10 years, plus interest you might have £25-30k
Which is 1/6 of the deposit you need to buy a 2-bed flat in London. So it’s 60 years for the deposit and then a 40 year mortgage. Assuming, again, that prices don’t keep doubling every 10 years.
10cm 1kg 5£
Also, while lattes may be a luxury from your standpoint--personally, I prefer black coffee--expensive purchases, for white collar workers, are not. You have to play those "status games" or your infinitesimal chances of getting promotions will go straight to zero. It's not always lattes. It could be something else: eating lunch with the popular kids, drinking with the bosses, etc. But you have to do it if you want any chance at all of having a career.
Furthermore, you need to take a course in remedial math. To be able to afford a starter house in the U.S. where there are decent jobs, you need to skip about (wait for it) a hundred thousand lattes. That's about 5,000 months (416 years!) of forgone coffee. The life expectancy from age 20 is about 58 years. Wrong; play again.
It's funny how Boomers and cappies love to talk about our need to take "personal responsibility" for surviving in the shit-ass world they've left us, but never consider that they should take responsibility (or be held responsible, because that's Bolshevism!) for having made the world the way it is.
But because society as a collective has decided on these games, and decided that you need credit cards, and need lattes that cost about $0.10 in raw materials at home, then everyone has to play these games.
Most importantly, if everyone refused getting mortgages, house prices would crash. But because mortgages (and low interested by the fed) have made housing more affordable to everyone, they've pushed up prices to where you're back to square one, except you have to pay interest as well as the house's price, rather than waiting until you've saved up the price. This goes back 50-100 years though.
Here's an another option: start your own business, so you don't have to play these career games.
There are a million options, it's just that they are harder, especially on a personal discipline level, which is not very popular these days.
Couple that with all time high income to housing price ratios[1], higher than 2008 housing bubble, and the idea that lattes are the problem is asinine.
The truth is that the lower rungs of the economy have been sacrificed in order to cater to the upper classes, and it has been this way since Reagan-Thatcher were in office. This has always existed before, but at no point in time has it been this blatant where failing up because of your social status has been this prevalent for the upper class, and whether it's University admission scams, white collar crime, to economic malfeasance... there is no limit to what length they will go to skew the game in their favour.
I think if people are being honest with their children in the developed Western World is that they should be optimizing them to either take over a family owned and operated business if it exists, or simply to teach them to have skills in which they can bypass the university debt trap and travel abroad and work remotely in order to maybe settle elsewhere, because this insanity has gone on for far too long.
Career building implies their is some integrity in the system but when it's built on nepotism and corruption one has to ask the very obvious question: why is this worth investing my child's life into? And who benefits the most for this?
As a millennial from the US that studied STEM and worked in my field, and eventual became an entrepreneur in fintech and hired both local and international talent: my country failed me every step of the way. It never failed to hinder or prevent my ability to excel in anything that didn't first serve the interests of multinational corporation(s) or the business interests of someone who 'played the game.'
Venturing out on my own and finding my own path in 2012 after paying off tons of student debt was not recreational, it was foreshadowing what I thought was happening in just the US but in most developed nations: self-cannibalization.
Politicians and the Boomers who elected them had access to cheap credit and stable careers that allowed for some savings were able to leverage that and have a glut of viable tenets pay not just for their mortgages by renting out rooms at inflated costs, but their very lifestyle.
It disgusted me to my core how brash and calloused people had become that they'd exploit education and housing to such a degree under the pretense of 'getting mine' when they were handed it on a silver platter all while simultaneously thinking this was achievable based on merit. The last landlord I had literately moved in his ex-wife unbeknownst to us and then subsidized her expenses based on increasing rent costs during COVID as we didn't chose to take advantage of the rent relief option.
I lost all respect for this class of individual and I now want to see them get economically ruined as I think it's the only chance for any level of reform at this point: mass homelessness and unemployment from 2008-COVID onward didn't change anything, a perpetual bondage based University debt system hasn't changed anything, lower standards of living and shorter life expediencies for Millenials and likely Gen Z hasn't either. I've come to the conclusion that nothing less than the significant die off, or in this case financial ruin, of the affluent boomer will lead to any significant reform.
Once you have your revenge on boomers, you’re the next enemy in line if not on the list already.
“Stare into the abyss..” and all that.
I'm not out for revenge, I now have abject apathy for their plight and alarming as it is I think I've come to the stark realization that I'm comfortable with saying/knowing that we will be significantly better off when they are no longer here.
As far as being 'on the list' have a look at my bio and posts.
I've spent time in many other Industries and I have, admittedly unlike many of my cohort, learned to live with less in Life and I have no need for opulence or descendant lifestyles: I have no interest in consumerism and have been mainly focused on environmental activism. I have been called a 'prince' but then I show them both my physical and emotional scars most usually realize that they wouldn't want to go through what I went through rather quickly.
This is still true, though. When I turned 40 in 1994, I decided I had lived with debt long enough. So I sold my plane. my boat and my 2nd house. In the next four years, I paid off the remaining mortgage on my 1st house and installments on my cars and credit cards. Was it hard? Yes, it was damn hard. It's like kicking a habit like a drug addiction, but the drug is easy credit.
I never went into debt again.
If only they’d saved with that money instead paid it as interest on the boat they never used anyhow
Have an upvote, good sir.
Other economists and politicians posit this won't happen and then proceed to do it, and then inflation happens, and then all of a sudden nobody could have predicted it, it is transitory (until it clearly is not), it is caused by Putin (except not according to the fed chair), it is because the economy is in transition, etc etc.
How about, don't pump metric shit-tons of money into the economy and see how that works.
And while you are at it, maybe don't make a campaign promise to end fossil fuels and act all surprised when the prices for fossil fuels go through the roof. I'm as happy as the next person to see the end to carbon emissions, but I don't do everything I can to end it and then whine about it ending .
Only if velocity stayed constant.
Problem is, velocity plummeted with the lockdowns. But now it might be coming back up.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2V
Edit: nope. Looks like GDP Now shows the GDP is still dropping.
This is the ridiculous issue with this MMT theory. How the hell can you be so stupid to assume that just because money velocity is slow now, and you pump lots of money into the system (actually you give it to financial companies, another red flag), it won’t cause inflation in a few years when things pick up?
Especially after a pandemic?
It went up by 500% since March 2020 btw, not just 100%, or 200%: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1SL
As far as I can tell, economists believe that pumping money into the economy only explains hyper inflation, not low or moderate inflation
Inflation in the US has been pretty stable for the last few decades
But I guess those people should just be grateful it was not higher before, and just be less greedy.
2. Why did prices for pretty much everything go up the week, or two, after the media started talking about the war, supply chain problems, and government spending?
Prices were pretty steady during Covid, at least on food, and gas, and most consumer products, except building materials, and appliances.
I personally think corporations used the war, and Covid, to raise prices seemingly overnight. My Chevron station went from $4.29 to $6.25 in a day.
These companies made record profits during Covid, but poof in a couple of weeks just blew up their pricing?
I think they used found a few good excuses to raise prices; and they all fell in line.
Kinda like my $5.49 rebate on my $800/yr. insurance policy at the beginning of Covid. Mercury by the way, and they used to be fair.
Yea, I was uncomfortable with Powell throwing money at the stock market, and buying all those mortgage backed securities, when housing and the stock market thrived during Covid. His response was, 'I kept my agreement with the financial sector.'
Weird times for sure.
An everlasting asset bubble and money at 0% is not sustainable and never has been.
But none of that is sufficient for inflation to occur. Inflation is a fall in the value of a unit of currency. In your terms, it can only occur when currency supply is higher than currency demand.[1]
But in other terms, while it is true that shortfalls in the supply of food, oil, and circuitry lower the value of a dollar, it is not true that they are able to cause inflation; if the number of dollars is lowered commensurately with the loss in value, that will offset the effect.
Talking in terms of the currency often puts the issue backwards.
So? It's not maintaining its value. Who cares whether it's maintaining its value measured in baht? That would just mean the baht is also losing value.
And it's also true that the pound sterling can experience inflation while maintaining its exchange rate against the Thai baht.
But those two things cannot happen simultaneously; if the pound is experiencing inflation and maintaining its exchange rate with the baht, then the baht is also experiencing inflation.
a currency is "devalued" by, eg., money printing, only in the sense that eventually the new cash drives prices up
when speaking about "inflation" we're always talking about some sets of prices... even in the case of "general inflation", this does not mean global prices for all products -- it means a certain subset, eg., CPI
so the GBP can maintain its value in many senses whilst the person-on-the-street experiences CPI.. the value of GBP isnt only in "general purchasing power relative to market relative to baskets"
trivially, arbitrage opportunities do exist, markets aren't perfectly efficient.. so there can be cases where UK CPI inflation is "ahead of the global curve"
I'm not sure this statement makes that much sense, won't demand always go up when prices drop, and drop off when it goes up? Demand does not exist in abstract, if I could get an iPhone 13 pro for $10 I would take 5, if it costs $2,000 I will take 0. If oil cost $1 a gallon instead of $4, won't the demand increase? And if it is $10 a gallon won't the demand decrease?
Maybe to simplify, cite something that backs your claim that demand is higher than supply.
And then maybe further, can you clarify: will demand not increase when people are given more money? Won't for example trillions of direct and indirect stimulus drive up demand? And if price stays constant won't the increase in demand not have to result in prices going up in order to avoid supply shortages?
Maybe this is an aside to you, but would you expect heating cost to increase or decrease if you are using fossil fuels for heating, and the government has promised to end fossil fuels?
I guess we can point all fingers to Putin, but decreasing the supply of fossil fuels seems to be an implicit campaign promise of the Biden administration, and he has the most popular administration in history, so I'm not sure why people are upset with paying more for heating and gas.
I see the data quite differently. No President since World War II ended has a lower approval rating on day 523 of their administration.
What accomplishment does Biden have that's going to counterbalance how pathetic his administration's response to the repeal of Roe v. Wade appears? It's become a meme among the left that the only thing the Democrats had prepared in response were fundraising letters.
Well he is not if you take the poll numbers, but as Biden has said, the low poll numbers are mainly a side effect of the negative sentiment for his administration in the right wing media. You will need to compensate for this to get an accurate picture.
"Compensating" for perceived reasons why a President is not liked, admired, or supported seems antithetical to the goal of measuring popularity. That would seem to me more like "fudging the data" (if I'm being polite) or "making shit up" (if I'm going for clarity).
No, this was just a lie though, the media has always been right wing, they lie and say they are not, but they are.
> What accomplishment does Biden have
He ended COVID, he pulled out of Afghanistan, he restored US reputation on the global stage, he put Russia in it's place, he was busy ending fossil fuels. I dunno there are many things, you just don't hear of them because the media is trying to tank his presidency.
I'll grant that he was more competent at administrating the response than Trump, but COVID hasn't ended, the pandemic is still in progress.
>he pulled out of Afghanistan
Yes, but it was a humanitarian disaster. You can argue that he shouldn't be blamed for that, and I might agree, but it didn't make him look good even when reported on honestly.
>he restored US reputation on the global stage
Citation needed. NATO got a credibility boost from Russia's invasion, but the US wound up looking weak and indecisive. And I don't think you can restore the stain on America's reputation that was Trump so easily, or unburn that many bridges. Maybe, if Trumpists don't take power again in 2024, but at the moment being the country in which guns have more rights than women (and soon to be LGBTQ and black people) is not good optics.
>he put Russia in it's place
In what sense? Is Russia's "place" right on top of Ukraine? Did I miss the news about the American negotiated surrender and Russian retreat? I don't understand.
He gave US the vaccines, without which the pandemic would have been much worse.
> > he pulled out of Afghanistan
> Yes, but it was a humanitarian disaster.
No it was not, this is just further misrepresentation by the media.
> > he restored US reputation on the global stage
> Citation needed.
https://apnews.com/article/government-and-politics-donald-tr...
> > he put Russia in it's place
> In what sense?
He sanctioned norstream 2: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2022/feb/23/biden-u...
Also he said he will make Russia pay for election interference [1].
[1]: https://edition.cnn.com/2021/03/17/politics/joe-biden-vladim...
That can be caused by supply-side inflation, eg., a sudden general drop in supply. Or demand-side, a sudden general increase in available cash.
Central banks increasing money supply is demand-side inflation. The issue with this, as a "final theory", is the last decade+ where it didnt hold; and in japan where inflation and money supply are entirely uncorrelated.
The only difference today, with inflation, is the supply-side shock. If central bank policies were causing inflation, they'dve caused it over the last decade; and likewise in japan.
Whilst central bank policies have raised asset prices, etc. there's very limited evidence they've raised, eg., the CPI
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1SL
They money supply (M1SL) increase by 500% since March 2020 - don't tell me that this is purely a supply side shock.
Or at the very least cite something that shows supply has dropped. And then explain to my why policies that increase the money supply by 500% is not expected to cause historic inflation while a pandemic is affecting supply?
However, we should be careful not just to say inflation is caused by the money supply. This is a theory of why inflation could occur, it isnt inflation. Inflation is just the general rise in prices.
Given that everything is suddenly more expensive when energy prices rise (since energy is required for everything), etc. And given supply chain crises, etc.
We are seeing a case where the supply-side is undergoing huge general shocks. If you want to say that M1 has caused a demand-side inflation, fine... but it seems to me that 1/2ing the price of oil would 1/2inflation; whereas doubling interest rates wont.
So if money supply is the cause of inflation, interest rates will entirely solve the problem. If the supply-side is, then it wont.
I'd place a large bet on supply side being the major part. I think 1/2ing oil price would take inflation down to (4-6)%, at which interest rates would then be effective.
I would like to see some evidence for this, as I don't think this is the case, I think this is just propaganda from fossil fuel companies and their political allies. Like Biden said the economy is just in transition. I think restricting oil and gas supply further will be much more more likely to lower inflation. Maybe Biden should outlaw all oil refining on US soil to help drive the transformation faster.
If people were just less greedy and cared more about the environment than their wallets then they would buy electric cars instead of driving gas guzzling SUVs that are destroying our planet.
Does it work like that in real world? If gas price doubles does that mean that folks who commute by car go only half way to work or stay at home every other day? If an iPhone costs $10, why would you buy 5 of them? What would you do with extra four? Browse hn on five screens at once?
Supply and demand are not infinitely elastic, as some like to think.
There are a lot of behavior that can be changed, not all of it, but people could skip some trips, maybe only 10% - but it is not 0%.
> If an iPhone costs $10, why would you buy 5 of them?
I have 5 umbrellas but just one body. I sometimes forget it at some place, or misplace it. Nice to have a spare when I need one. I could then leave an iPhone at work for when my battery runs out for example.
> Supply and demand are not infinitely elastic, as some like to think.
Fair enough, my examples were a bit contrived and absurd, but my point is more just that neither supply nor demand is fixed. But yes they are not infinitely elastic, but they are somewhat elastic.
My reading of the figures is US supply has either recovered or is limited because of restricted imports (chips etc)
If you create policy that deter investment in fossil fuels, and reduce production, would you expect prices to go up or down? And if you don't create policy to deter investment and reduce production, then how will you end fossil fuels?
Maybe a better question to ask is, do you think there is any way to end fossil fuels other than having it be more expensive than alternatives?
Why would the government resume leasing for oil and gas drilling on federal lands if they don't think stopping it affected the supply [1]? Is it just because they really want to mess the climate up some more and break campaign promises?
[1]: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/biden-adminis...
As for ending fossil fuels , I never commented on that nor am I an expert in the field so I won't make any claim
But I guess the media has been incredibly negative towards the Biden administration and not giving him credit for the good things he has done, so I'm not surprised that people don't recognize or appreciate the work he has done to end fossil fuels.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/biden-prom...
Here's a few related to the environment
----
Rejoin the Paris climate agreement
U.S. formally rejoins Paris Climate Agreement | May 21, 2021
---
Put US on a course to net-zero emissions by 2050.
Joe Biden’s moves start the US toward net-zero carbon, but Congress is key | January 27, 2021
--
Establish new fuel economy standards
EPA tightens fuel efficiency rules for cars and light trucks | January 11, 2022
--
Give disadvantaged communities 40% of spending benefits related to clean energy
Congress holds key on clean energy dollars to poorer communities | July 20, 2021
###
There are four related to the environment that I can see. He's rejoined the paris aggreement and had then EPA increase fuel economy. The other two haven't been done ..yet.
What promise did he break? If he is anti climate what are you comparing him too? The past president left the Paris agreenment.
Well like I said I still think he is the best president ever, but In my view allowing new leases on federal land[1] and asking oil companies to boost supply[2] is breaking his campaign promise to end fossil fuels[3].
But I understand this may be entirely due to my own biases, and I don't want to malign him, like I said I think he is without question the best president ever and I do not mean to suggest I doubt this for one moment. I would of course prefer that he did not allow new leases on federal land but I can see that I should maybe listen to what others think and consider how this is maybe just a better way to keep his promise than what I have considered. And to be fair I'm not entirely sure that the promise to end fossil fuels is not a right wing smear against him, this could very well be the case.
[1]: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/15/biden-administration-to-resu...
[2]: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/15/politics/joe-biden-oil-co...
[3]: https://apnews.com/article/9dfb1e4c381043bab6fd0fa6dece3974
But as you rightly point out there are so many that he has kept that one hardly makes a difference and he still is the most popular president ever so I don't mean to disparage him.
Anyway, I think the reason behind the inflation is not that the amount of cash is to high. Wages have not grown accordingly and demand has not gone up. But due to Covid, supply chain issues (related and incidental), international conflict, etc., we have just been producing less stuff.
So I would say the inflation of some goods (housing) is due to the simmering financial crisis, and the inflation of others (like wheat, cooking oil, electronics) is due to political strife and economic instability.
Okay, but ... if you just pumping money into the economy, are you not by definition just pumping money into the economy, as opposed to goods and money? If congress could by decree make goods why would anyone need to work?
I'm not sure demand driven inflation (= money supply driven) is a relevant problem at the moment. On the contrary I sometimes suspect it is a bogeyman used to justify not raising wages.
Even if there was no direct stimulus, which there was, companies don't just take stimulus, put it in their bank account and forget about it. But sure, if you have some evidence to suggest that this money never really entered circulation I think it would help your case.
The reality is though, money supply increases by 400% since March 2020 and historic inflation followed. There may be other reasons, but I'm not sure what you would expect to see other than inflation.
> On the contrary I sometimes suspect it is a bogeyman used to justify not raising wages.
Wages have increased have they not? This is another signature achievement of the much maligned Biden administration, that the media is trying to hide. Wages are at historically high levels.
Some points:
Deflation is bad for the economy, you want moderate inflation.
Increasing the money supply is a prerequisite for inflation, but not the cause. The euro zone increased it‘s money supply enormously for mor than a decade and - until last year - had problems meeting it‘s 2% a year inflation goal.
Increasing the money supply allows for cheap investments for both the state and private business. If the investments provide a net benefit to the economy (e.g. infrastructure) you should just do them. “Anything we can actually do we can afford.” - Keynes
I would recommend people start with some normal economics before they get into the economic homologue of urine therapy.
https://realprogressives.org/podcast_episode/episode-173-inf...
There's a well sourced explanation in this video regarding the price of fuel that I really enjoyed. https://youtu.be/QnBqAzJXVGo There's also previous ones dealing with oil drilling.
The tldr idea is that the US could drill more to satisfy the supply right now, but oil corps like money and high oil prices give them that. And that's regardless of the demand going down over years - the drilling rights are already in place.
Money has started feeling like a joke. It's thrown around for anything and everything.
An ERC-20 memecoin called Shiba Inu hit a market cap of $41B. A dying video game retailer hit a market cap of nearly $30B. A taxi aggregator swallowed $33B in funding and never turned a dime in operational profit in 12 years of its existence. A house bought in 2019 doubled in price in under 2 years.
Its complete and utter insanity.
Can’t speak to how it will end up working, but its definitely not a surprise.