Economics
I’ve known this for a while thanks to the *Money & Macro* YouTube channel: [How Commercial Banks Really Create Money (the Money Multiplier is a MYTH)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDNSNX48Kmo)
In recent speeches, Donald Trump reiterated his intention to halt trade ties with China. The former president's emphatically harsh rhetoric is prompting the White House to demonstrate its willingness to strengthen anti-China measures. As usual, the Chinese remain silent and pretend that nothing is happening. During his election campaign, the Republican leader assured that he would impose customs duties of 60% on Chinese goods if elected president. According to Trump, the purpose of these measures is to "bring companies back to the United States". In addition, the ex-president hinted at the need for greater control over investment flows between the two countries. Many experts believe that such steps will actually mean the severance of economic relations with the People's Republic of China, though with certain reservations. Already, a significant part of Chinese products enters the USA through third countries. They come mainly from Southeast Asia and Mexico, with the latter displacing the PRC as the leading importer of goods to the United States in 2023. A multiple increase in tariffs will lead to a complete overhaul of supply chains between the two largest economies. The additional costs, analysts warn, will be borne by American consumers. Against this background, the local media began publishing about the administration's plans to announce measures to limit financial transactions with Beijing in the near future. The reason cited is the supposedly increased risks of "sensitive" personal data falling into the hands of the Communist Party of China. It should be noted that restrictions against Chinese electric cars are being worked out under the same pretext. As expected, the presidential election campaign is becoming a key factor influencing the development of US-China ties. In this context, the Democrats are facing a challenging task. On the one hand, the White House is interested in maintaining the current dynamics of US-China contacts. Among other things, this is due to the need to demonstrate the effectiveness of the "responsible competition" with Beijing. On the other hand, Donald Trump's scathing statements are resonating with voters, pushing the administration to take stronger measures against the Public Republic of China, primarily protectionist ones. Of course, the Chinese are closely monitoring the US election campaign and are trying not to comment on Trump's attacks against them.
Discount retailer says low-income households feel more ‘financially constrained’ than six months ago Paywall removed: https://archive.is/SLMtR
This stuff was posted on two sites: - Ryan Grim & Jeremy Scahill’s new [Drop Site](https://www.dropsitenews.com/about) - Matt Taibbi’s [Racket News](https://www.racket.news/) I haven’t gone through all the content yet, but over the last ~6 years I’ve come to take [Jeffrey Sachs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Sachs) at his word, moreso than [Naomi Klein](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Klein). He’s been consistently what he appears at face value. - Ryan Grim: [Jeffrey Sachs: A Front Row Seat to the Cold War That Never Ended](https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/jeffrey-sachs-a-front-row-seat-to) - Matt Taibbi: [What I Got Wrong About “Shock Therapy”](https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/what-i-got-wrong-about-shock-therapy) - Ryan Grim & Emily Jashinsky interview Matt Taibbi & Jeffery Sachs: [A True Shock? Economist Jeffrey Sachs Reveals Secret at Heart of U.S.-Russian Relations](https://www.racket.news/p/a-true-shock-economist-jeffrey-sachs) ([YouTube video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWYZpF2ngnc))
>It appears that Senator Elizabeth Warren was spot on in her assessment of the lack of a backbone for Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell when it comes to raising capital requirements on the powerful megabanks on Wall Street. Powell doesn’t lack backbone. The private banking cartel largely runs the Fed, and he’s their elected capo. [The Fed is a racket.](https://archive.org/details/secretsofthetemplehowthefederalreserverunsthecountry)
www.bloomberg.com
https://archive.is/rvudP
fortune.com
>That is what happens when you slash taxation on the richest and allow inequality to explode. Your economies die, and your children don’t eat, and they wear thick jumpers, as I did, in the winter, and they shiver, with their families, in cold homes. >Meanwhile, someone like me will be sitting in a skyscraper, just a 15-minute walk away, betting on it, and that person will become a millionaire. >Then they’ll retire and they’ll buy a luxury apartment, overlooking a marina, and they’ll sit on a huge sofa and eat porridge, and they’ll watch the budget, and they’ll cry. >And in the houses down the road, the mom doesn’t eat, and she hopes the children don’t notice. But they do.
cross-posted from: https://jorts.horse/users/fathermcgruder/statuses/113008342518705813 > Instead of price controls to prevent gouging, why doesn't the government build up reserves and stockpiles? > > [\#economics](https://jorts.horse/tags/economics) [#HarrisWalz](https://jorts.horse/tags/HarrisWalz) [#PriceControls](https://jorts.horse/tags/PriceControls) [#gouging](https://jorts.horse/tags/gouging) > > [@crosspost](https://lemmy.crimedad.work/c/crosspost)
Two economic papers presented at the ECB forum in Sintra drew criticism for their questionable conclusions on the causes of inflation. The first paper attributed inflation primarily to demand shocks, contradicting widely held views and empirical evidence pointing to significant supply-side factors. The second paper, while offering valuable insights into past interest rate cycles, used the same flawed methodology and also arrived at implausible results. Another paper, analyzing geopolitical shocks and inflation, underestimated the impact of the Russian invasion of Ukraine on global inflation. The UK's new chancellor, Rachel Reeves, faces a challenging economic landscape, as indicated by a chart showing the UK's unfavorable economic indicators compared to 1997. https://archive.ph/SMhkZ
>Using data from the Census Bureau, TransUnion and the Federal Reserve, the study’s authors looked at inflation-adjusted household debt in the country’s largest 181 cities found Santa Clarita, California to have the highest average household credit card debt ($21,836), followed by Chula Vista, CA ($20,920), New York, NY ($19,207), Fontana, CA ($18,843) and Rancho Cucamonga, CA ($18,549).
https://archive.ph/O1kQZ
www.nytimes.com
Alternative link: https://archive.ph/ce08r "Specifically, let me make three points. First, while $34 trillion is a very large figure, it’s a lot less scary than many imagine if you put it in historical and international context. Second, to the extent debt is a concern, making debt sustainable wouldn’t be at all hard in terms of the straight economics; it’s almost entirely a political problem. Finally, people who claim to be deeply concerned about debt are, all too often, hypocrites — the level of their hypocrisy often reaches the surreal. How scary is the debt? It’s a big number, even if you exclude debt that is basically money that one arm of the government owes to another — debt held by the public is still around [$27 trillion](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYGFDPUN). But our economy is huge, too. Today, debt as a percentage of G.D.P. isn’t unprecedented, even in America: It’s roughly the same as it was at the [end of World War II](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYPUGDA188S). It’s considerably lower than the [corresponding number for Japan](https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2024/April/weo-report?c=158,\&s=GGXWDN_NGDP,\&sy=2019\&ey=2024\&ssm=0\&scsm=1\&scc=0\&ssd=1\&ssc=0\&sic=0\&sort=country\&ds=.\&br=1) right now and far below [Britain’s debt ratio](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PSDOTUKA) at the end of World War II. In none of these cases was there anything resembling a debt crisis. ..."
