This discussion and charts makes me wonder whether the "normal" ways we measure the economy are no longer valid, especially longitudinal results when the underlying conditions change dramatically?
Does GDP reflect the economic production of our whole country when we largely produce "services" or intellectual property? Do unemployment numbers tell us anything about productivity or employment options when they can be affected by deporting millions of workers that don't have the right documentation or when millions of seniors retire? Do these traditional standard measures of our economic health tell us anything usable in the chaos of today?
In that light, Stacey's chart seems to give us a better picture than the Fed does.
That said, what are more valid measurements that help us make sense of the state of our economy today?
Your question about how usable traditional standard measures are anymore in economics has a parallel for me in politics. How many people answer a polling question, not so much on the merits of the subject in question, but, give an answer that has the least risk of making them look like a loser after the actual votes are counted? An answer sort of like a prediction that they perceive is most likely to happen, regardless of what the traditional standard, such as morality, use to dictate. Go with the party or the tribe? Go with the momentum? The influences are many and complicated anymore. Is that the basis of the gambling markets? God, I dig this shit and why I love Justin's discussions with Stacey and anybody else because he allows the economic ideas to flow into every aspect of my desire to get a handle on what the hell is happening in this particular point in time...and with fucking charts to boot.
Great episode. As a rule follower myself, I always love when people remind me that rules are socially constructed. So Stacy wins my vote today.
That said, your chart Justin spurred me to action: I went back to the data I have in my own household which is now nearly 20 years of annual budgets. Avg wage increase since 2009: 3.7%. But details matter: wage increases that allowed us to keep up came with job changes. Now that we are in stable careers we both like, my perception is wages won't keep up with inflation because we are likely tied to COL annual raises which almost never outperform inflation. So part of perception is known vs unknown: most of our job changes - which luckily ended up being good moves - were unforseen. Annual increases are foreseeable but marginal. I don't know the official inflation rate since 2009 but it's probably less than our 3.7% wage increase and you definitely taught me something!
And now I need to rethink whether to be ok with the plan to stay in our current roles, which of course is more than a money calculation.
How do I vote???? No really, how does one vote??? Well, I vote Stacy!! Justin's is the data we all see; Ratner does an excellent job as well. Justin's does indicate sentiment, but Stacy’s shows the feelings of the chaos with its extremities. Further, I do not necessarily like the art of Jackson Pollack, but that type of art allows one to interpret it for a time period in one's life, and to compare it to a present day, and thereby gives a sense of the future and the changes that need to be made for things to be better. Who knew …... Economics??
Justin... you provided a standard chart response that an economist naturally would present. Stacy hit the economics nail on the head which exploded into a J. Pollack true explanation of today's life. It's a crazy world.
I have some thoughts but direct to the voting for our tabulators:
Justin's chart offers an examination of legacy data, our heritage, the facets of our past... in short, he's mined diamonds for us. Not grown them in a lab mind you, shaken up ingredients & blooped them out of a test tube (or a whole box of test tubes, one for each color) all at once. He's done the methodical physical works of gathering, sifting & crunching numbers, then carefully arraying them along clear axes. Stacey instead offers us everything all at once - a snapshot of our current chaos, true, but what brought us to this moment and how might we project ourselves forward? Stacey's may stimulate a feeling, but we won't all agree what that feeling is - except, perhaps, for uncertainty. Does the Pollock chart really convey "a narrative" (as our comparative literature major says) when no two viewers may read the same story in it? ...or any story at all? CONCLUSION: No pity for Stacy. Peanut butter cups for Justin, one for each ear next to JFK & Marilyn.
Other reflections today: They say 3rd time's the charm but Greenspan's charm apparently didn't get thru to Mitchell till #4? And she was always seen as a perceptive journalist.... So yeah, Greenspan's verbiage must have been dense to the point of opaque. Warsh tho? More of a Silent Cal vibe (ironically, Ai overview of Coolidge's college study states he "distinguished himself in public speaking" - irony abounds)
Diamond terminology: "real" versus "natural"? How bout "legacy diamonds"? ..."heritage"? The natural type are all old, no? But at risk of being replaced by newer high tech version? Boomer gems, then.
Re: the dead celebrity diamond bizness: Eels, Tiger in My Tank (1999):
Wow, Stacey. Is the appearance of flying under the radar a clever economic strategy? Or is it still just doing nothing? Worthy of some thought. I'm thinking it's a workable economic strategy of the younger generations who are silently waiting for the trillions of dollars us boomers are holding to one day trickle down. Que sera, sera.
Justin, I just mentioned you and your substack in a comment on Charlie Sykes’ “To the Contrary”. ProtonMail has introduced “catagories” in their email service. You are now under “Newsletters”. All good, “Mate”.
Chart wise, I really like Stacey's approach, but also also like to be informed about something, and Justin's Chart hits the nail on the head. 71% of People having a negative view of the future, sucks, but here we are. Sure hope it gets better, but not until Trump is gone or lame ducked.
You never really know if those 2 electoral votes will be the whole ball of wax. At least that seems to be the intention. Thinking I'd like a pure and simple majority vote count, though.
I don't play the lottery, on account of I kicked a budding gambling habit at the age of 12, with the help of a loving mother and a bookie named Burt. Long story. I know the lucky day feeling. I just picked up my Ozempic pen and the pharmacist said, "Lookie there...no charge...your lucky day." I had him repeat that a couple times before it sunk in. In a moment of weakness I asked him if they sold the tickets and then I heard my mother's voice in the recesses of my brain, "Whoa, Chuckie! Think!"
Oh my gosh, who wouldn't vote for the chart showing chaos over common sense in this era??
This discussion and charts makes me wonder whether the "normal" ways we measure the economy are no longer valid, especially longitudinal results when the underlying conditions change dramatically?
Does GDP reflect the economic production of our whole country when we largely produce "services" or intellectual property? Do unemployment numbers tell us anything about productivity or employment options when they can be affected by deporting millions of workers that don't have the right documentation or when millions of seniors retire? Do these traditional standard measures of our economic health tell us anything usable in the chaos of today?
In that light, Stacey's chart seems to give us a better picture than the Fed does.
That said, what are more valid measurements that help us make sense of the state of our economy today?
Your question about how usable traditional standard measures are anymore in economics has a parallel for me in politics. How many people answer a polling question, not so much on the merits of the subject in question, but, give an answer that has the least risk of making them look like a loser after the actual votes are counted? An answer sort of like a prediction that they perceive is most likely to happen, regardless of what the traditional standard, such as morality, use to dictate. Go with the party or the tribe? Go with the momentum? The influences are many and complicated anymore. Is that the basis of the gambling markets? God, I dig this shit and why I love Justin's discussions with Stacey and anybody else because he allows the economic ideas to flow into every aspect of my desire to get a handle on what the hell is happening in this particular point in time...and with fucking charts to boot.
Isn't a synthetic diamond the working definition of a false economy?
Has anyone ever said 'A Zircon is Forever' to their betrothed and avoided getting a fat lip for their troubles?
Good point!
Great episode. As a rule follower myself, I always love when people remind me that rules are socially constructed. So Stacy wins my vote today.
That said, your chart Justin spurred me to action: I went back to the data I have in my own household which is now nearly 20 years of annual budgets. Avg wage increase since 2009: 3.7%. But details matter: wage increases that allowed us to keep up came with job changes. Now that we are in stable careers we both like, my perception is wages won't keep up with inflation because we are likely tied to COL annual raises which almost never outperform inflation. So part of perception is known vs unknown: most of our job changes - which luckily ended up being good moves - were unforseen. Annual increases are foreseeable but marginal. I don't know the official inflation rate since 2009 but it's probably less than our 3.7% wage increase and you definitely taught me something!
And now I need to rethink whether to be ok with the plan to stay in our current roles, which of course is more than a money calculation.
How do I vote???? No really, how does one vote??? Well, I vote Stacy!! Justin's is the data we all see; Ratner does an excellent job as well. Justin's does indicate sentiment, but Stacy’s shows the feelings of the chaos with its extremities. Further, I do not necessarily like the art of Jackson Pollack, but that type of art allows one to interpret it for a time period in one's life, and to compare it to a present day, and thereby gives a sense of the future and the changes that need to be made for things to be better. Who knew …... Economics??
Wait, do I sound like Arthur Dent commenting on Vogon poetry??
Justin... you provided a standard chart response that an economist naturally would present. Stacy hit the economics nail on the head which exploded into a J. Pollack true explanation of today's life. It's a crazy world.
I have some thoughts but direct to the voting for our tabulators:
Justin's chart offers an examination of legacy data, our heritage, the facets of our past... in short, he's mined diamonds for us. Not grown them in a lab mind you, shaken up ingredients & blooped them out of a test tube (or a whole box of test tubes, one for each color) all at once. He's done the methodical physical works of gathering, sifting & crunching numbers, then carefully arraying them along clear axes. Stacey instead offers us everything all at once - a snapshot of our current chaos, true, but what brought us to this moment and how might we project ourselves forward? Stacey's may stimulate a feeling, but we won't all agree what that feeling is - except, perhaps, for uncertainty. Does the Pollock chart really convey "a narrative" (as our comparative literature major says) when no two viewers may read the same story in it? ...or any story at all? CONCLUSION: No pity for Stacy. Peanut butter cups for Justin, one for each ear next to JFK & Marilyn.
Other reflections today: They say 3rd time's the charm but Greenspan's charm apparently didn't get thru to Mitchell till #4? And she was always seen as a perceptive journalist.... So yeah, Greenspan's verbiage must have been dense to the point of opaque. Warsh tho? More of a Silent Cal vibe (ironically, Ai overview of Coolidge's college study states he "distinguished himself in public speaking" - irony abounds)
Diamond terminology: "real" versus "natural"? How bout "legacy diamonds"? ..."heritage"? The natural type are all old, no? But at risk of being replaced by newer high tech version? Boomer gems, then.
Re: the dead celebrity diamond bizness: Eels, Tiger in My Tank (1999):
🎼"I bought some rock star ashes
From the back of Rolling Stone
I guess he wouldn't mind it
They couldn't sell his soul"🎼
I am wondering where the trump family enters this picture.
Wow, Stacey. Is the appearance of flying under the radar a clever economic strategy? Or is it still just doing nothing? Worthy of some thought. I'm thinking it's a workable economic strategy of the younger generations who are silently waiting for the trillions of dollars us boomers are holding to one day trickle down. Que sera, sera.
Justin, I just mentioned you and your substack in a comment on Charlie Sykes’ “To the Contrary”. ProtonMail has introduced “catagories” in their email service. You are now under “Newsletters”. All good, “Mate”.
So sorry, Justin. Stacey hit the ball out of the park with her chart!!
Bit of a fan of Jackson Pollock, Stacey wins
Chart wise, I really like Stacey's approach, but also also like to be informed about something, and Justin's Chart hits the nail on the head. 71% of People having a negative view of the future, sucks, but here we are. Sure hope it gets better, but not until Trump is gone or lame ducked.
You never really know if those 2 electoral votes will be the whole ball of wax. At least that seems to be the intention. Thinking I'd like a pure and simple majority vote count, though.
I don't play the lottery, on account of I kicked a budding gambling habit at the age of 12, with the help of a loving mother and a bookie named Burt. Long story. I know the lucky day feeling. I just picked up my Ozempic pen and the pharmacist said, "Lookie there...no charge...your lucky day." I had him repeat that a couple times before it sunk in. In a moment of weakness I asked him if they sold the tickets and then I heard my mother's voice in the recesses of my brain, "Whoa, Chuckie! Think!"