Hacker News Reader

Comment by hellothere1337 | Hacker News Reader

We are being gaslighted that there's an epidemic of quiet quitting when quiet quitting has been defined as "not staying on unpaid overtime". We're being told that remote work is killing America because inner city office rental properties have lost value. In the end however its just a way to manufacture consent for the inevitable layoffs that will soon hit the economy. The Federal Reserve stated explicitly that they will stop inflation by increasing unemployment because there are no other levers left.

View on HN

> because there are no other levers left.

That the government is allowed to use.

Cost of living in cities is sky high, rent and property prices are a huge part of that. The solution, rezone and build crap tons of housing, is politically untenable due to a vocal minority.

Increasing corporate taxes, or just taxes in general on the upper brackets, another lever that isn't available in the current political climate.

Yup someone has to foot the bill for the reckless policy dictated over the past few years. And as it was in 2008 the middle class will pay for it again.

I agree with the solution but I don't think it's a minority stopping it. Even the people who can't afford housing don't want to do that, they just want a 4 bedroom house with a big backyard that magically costs a lot less.

They're setting up the narrative to deflect blame from Wall Street to the general public for the impending market correction.

There are absolutely other levers left, the Fed just doesn't want you to know about them. Some large portion of inflation is being driven by unjustified price increases, price gouging, which is driving spectacular record profits in some sectors. Nixon arguably ended out of control inflation with price controls. The same could be done today. Another lever would be an excess profits/windfall tax.

Edit: As I see I'm already being downvoted let me just say: you can't complain about inflation, and the unemployment that's resulting from it, while ignoring one of inflation's key drivers and pretending nothing can be done about it.

How are they unjustified? In my world, our costs have gone up over 50%.

> How are they unjustified? In my world, our costs have gone up over 50%.

Of course prices have gone up, but some businesses are using this as an excuse to raise prices more than is needed to make up for their inputs, leading to record profits, which are undeniable. Fed chair Powell stated in a Senate hearing that some companies are doing this "because they can". This is a hotly debated (political) topic though because of course companies don't want to be seen as exacerbating inflation, but there's plenty read if you search around.

How much have you raised prices? Most companies are using this as an excuse to pad their profit margins.

https://thehill.com/policy/finance/3715725-rising-profits-ar....

it's known that companies are raising prices beyond the levels of inflation that are affecting their supply, just so they can get more profit out of it.

Here is the most unlikely citation you'll ever see me post on Hacker News. On FOX News no less, bizarrely hosting an op-ed by Bernie Sanders! But this is the key graf:

> According to a recent study, nearly 54% of the rise in inflation is directly attributable to the astronomical increase in corporate profit margins. In America today, while the working class struggles to put food on the table, fill up their gas tanks and heat their homes, corporate profits are at a 70-year-high.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/our-economic-crisis-isnt-inf...

The next several paragraphs are then specific examples: oil industry, airlines, agribusiness, with examples of their profit margins increasing significantly.

now, "a recent study", blah blah where are the numbers etc., sure. However, that's the argument, take it or leave it. Bernie tends to be pretty accurate when he cites stats.

Yes, this is one of the studies I saw recently. Of course, corporations will deny that price gouging is what's driving their incredible record profits, but they fail to give any other explanation.

Bernie Sanders has a habit of posting his op-eds in the publications that he feels will deliver the message to his intended audience.

In other words, he likely wants to spend less time "preaching to the choir".

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/media/op-eds/

this is about to veer offtopic but do you think FOX would actually publish the same article written by a more mainstream Democrat like HRC ? probably not

In addition to not wanting to preach to the choir, I think there is legitimately a swathe of FoxNews watchers who maybe felt let down by Trump and some other conservatives failing to fulfil their populist promises and continuation of giving more breaks to the rich than the working class. Bernie can probably reach these viewers with his pro worker messaging, whereas most mainstream dems can't. Hopefully this translates to moving these voters to vote for candidates speaking to these same points, especially in primary campaigns.

People complain that "both parties are the same". This is mostly overstated, but it is very true when it comes to neo-liberalism and pro-captial. I think Bernie is trying to reach out to the swing voters who are sick of that.

Nixon's price controls did not work. Saying "arguably" doesn't change that. Most reasonable people aware of the history of the 1970s would expect more thorough support for such a controversial assertion. It's like saying "Pol Pot was arguably one of the 20th century's greatest humanitarians." If it's arguable, let's see you argue it.

I used the word arguably because this is clearly debated territory, for obvious reasons. Prices stabilized after the controls, though the policy was held for longer than it should have been.

OTOH the price controls and centrally planned economy we had during WWII transitioned this country from the hardships of the great depression into the much better standards of living enjoyed during the years following.

I think these levers are more of a fiscal policy than monetary policy. Fed does not have the levers, but the government and fed together have the levers. I always felt that the independent central bank is pretty artificial and used as an excuse.

But I am in complete agreement with you on the point you made. Why are we treating profits as untouchable? If labor and cost of goods go up, maybe profits should go down before passing the cost to consumers? I suspect the answer is not very pleasing for many people.

>the Fed just doesn't want you to know about them.

First of all, the Fed doesn't have the power to implement price controls or levy taxes. Also, why do you think they don't want you to know about them? Janet Yellen, our last Fed Chair, is pushing towards higher taxes, she's part of the administration pushing for a windfall tax.

Nixon froze wages along with prices, so it's ironic that you're using him a positive example.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com