Fed plans to raise rates as soon as March to cool inflation

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It seems in interest rate markets there are now more bets on  multiple 75-basis-point rate this year.  That is not the consensus but it is good to see this is the way the Fed might move.  Moving rates to 2.5% by the end of the year is a complete joke.  Much more aggressive action is needed the massively reduce the liquidity in the market.

More aggressive action would lead to a recession, many economists are worried that even as far as the Fed will go could  lead to recession. Rates need to go up yes, but it needs to be done gradually so that economic growth does not slow too much, all at once.

For me, a recession is a feature and not a bug.  A recession will allow for labor and capital engaged in value-destroying activities to be reallocated to value-creating activities.  Right now we have a situation where you are paying people to borrow money (in after-inflation terms.)  The longer this goes on the greater the economic distortions and worse the long-term economic growth prospects will be.

I pretend to be a sociopath sometimes for fun, but dude cmon. 

The sad (but inevitable) fact is that in the long-term a recession of some kind is inevitable. Dread it, run from it, market distortions (and excessive debt) bring recessions or even depressions all the same. In that way, they are more akin to forest fires than anything else. Recessions are part of the economic cycle. It's better to have several small ones than one big one.

Of course, what is most likely to happen if we have another recession is that the government simply puts boatloads of money in the hands of corporate America - again (not like they didn't already do that during corona). Essentially, that is corporate welfare. And it's funded by us, John Q. Public, whether we will it or not. I'm not necessarily hostile to that, because stability could be quite desirable here, but it's not exactly without downsides either.

Yes, but the difference between a normal informed person and Jaichind is that the former doesn’t actively cheer for a recession.

I mean, at this point, it is in his interest, as a wealthy man, for this to happen.

Maybe but humans have this thing called empathy.

To be fair to jaichind (I can't believe I'm saying that), Paul Keating back in the 90s described a downturn in Australia as "the recession we had to have" for the same reasons concerning longer-term reconfiguration of economic priorities. I doubt jaichind's actual reasons for wanting this are as [checks notes] noble as [checks notes again] Paul Keating's, though.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It does seem like since 1970, we have experienced an era of permanent decline. A "recession" or two will occur every decade, but the economy will remain stagnant for most of the decade. No real growth. Savings is a myth. Prices going up. It's unfortunate. The fed changed the nature of the world

The big monetary policy change around 1970 was the Nixon shock, not the Fed, but yeah, there is decent circumstantial evidence (if you start from certain priors) that the shift to pure fiat money contributed to our economy's long-term unsoundness.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It does seem like since 1970, we have experienced an era of permanent decline. A "recession" or two will occur every decade, but the economy will remain stagnant for most of the decade. No real growth. Savings is a myth. Prices going up. It's unfortunate. The fed changed the nature of the world

The big monetary policy change around 1970 was the Nixon shock, not the Fed, but yeah, there is decent circumstantial evidence (if you start from certain priors) that the shift to pure fiat money contributed to our economy's long-term unsoundness.

I have to say, I didn’t have you pegged down as a goldbug, Nathan.

The "certain priors" include "being a monetarist", which I'm not (thank God and thank my mother for raising me with Milton Friedman as a hate object, once I was old enough to be told about him).

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It does seem like since 1970, we have experienced an era of permanent decline. A "recession" or two will occur every decade, but the economy will remain stagnant for most of the decade. No real growth. Savings is a myth. Prices going up. It's unfortunate. The fed changed the nature of the world

The big monetary policy change around 1970 was the Nixon shock, not the Fed, but yeah, there is decent circumstantial evidence (if you start from certain priors) that the shift to pure fiat money contributed to our economy's long-term unsoundness.

These are fighting words to me!

Again, sake of argument, etc. The entire point I made there presupposed monetarism, which I do not and the person to whom I was speaking does (in addition to a variety of other similarly wrong ideas on which he's dead-set).