1/ In @RayDalio's perspective, we are at the very late stages of the long term debt cycle. These long term debt cycles typically take 50-75 years to play out. This cycle began in 1945 when World War II ended and we began the US dollar-dominated world order.
More from Kanekoa
There is overwhelming evidence of election fraud in all contested states. Therefore it is the duty of the Executive, Legislative, & Judicial branches to throw out the fraudulent votes & to honor their oath to protect & defend the Constitution of the USA.🇺🇸🦅
https://t.co/XP9LQuEPtY
*The Evidence Collection*
— Kanekoa (@KanekoaTheGreat) December 29, 2020
There is overwhelming evidence of election fraud. Therefore it is the duty of the Executive, Legislative, & Judicial branches to throw out the fraudulent votes & to honor their oath to protect & defend the Constitution of the USA.\U0001f1fa\U0001f1f8\U0001f985
A list below.\U0001f53b pic.twitter.com/x57NgPVhhd
https://t.co/LMeZ6uOfzW
Thread of my threads. pic.twitter.com/KCQ1AOoIn3
— Kanekoa (@KanekoaTheGreat) November 23, 2020
More from Economy
Surprised so many smart people bought into the idea that $600/wk UI is the same as $600/wk job guarantee (or better) or that JG jobs must be inherently inessential. I\u2019ve addressed this many times & will post a thread later. Trying not to spend precious family time on Twitter.
— Pavlina R Tcherneva (@ptcherneva) December 29, 2020
Automatic stabilization: Both $600/wk UI and JG will provide counter cyclical spending. But UI will be weaker. Counter-cyclical stabilization is not just about the absence of income. It is also about the transmission and structure of economy
Firms don't like to hire the unemployed. Mass and long-term unemployment make the problem worse. JG would recover labor markets much faster than a UI of the same amount, both b/c of the higher direct, induced & tertiary employment effects & b/c of private firm hiring preferences.
JG stabilizes spending patterns better. Uncertain job prospects may mean more cautious spending from the unemployed compared to those w/ guaranteed jobs.
UI is temporary, which makes matters worse. Even if it were permanent, it still won't resolve the problem of job scarcity.
Nations who once achieved tight full employment through active labor market policies demonstrate that unemployment does NOT fluctuate the same way it does w/o them. Direct employment, ELR type policies diminish drastically/even eliminate these amplitudes (eg postwar Japan/Sweden)
I can't tell if I'm agreeing or disagreeing with @jc_econ.
There is no relationship b/w deficits & interest rates in the US & many other advanced economies. Centuries of dynamic institution building underpin our reserve currency status that allows rates to be a function of economic fundamentals, flows & policy not credit risk 1/3
— Dr. Julia Coronado (@jc_econ) January 26, 2021
Increasing government spending or reducing taxes increases demand (or reduces saving). This raises the price of loanable funds or the interest rate.
In a dynamic context, more demand means a stronger economy, the central bank raises interest rates sooner, and long rates rise.
(As an aside, we are not close to the United States needing to worry about credit risk and the risks are more overstated than understated in most other advanced economies too. But credit risk is not always & everywhere irrelevant, just look at the UK in 1976 or Canada in 1994.)
Interest rates have fallen over the last 20 yrs while debt has risen. This does not necessarily mean that debt rising causes interest rates to fall. It could also mean that other things have happened at he same time that pushed down interest rates more than debt pushed them up.
The suspects for these "other things" include slower productivity growth, slower popln growth, higher inequality, less investment, etc. All of which either increase the supply of saving or reduce the demand for investment, reducing the equilibrium interest rate.