The Recession We Need To Have | Economics Explained 

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Corporate personhood is a legal fiction that allows golden parachutes to happen.

As they say, "the peasant always pays "

Over half of American households pay NO Federal Income Tax. Half! It’s not the lower classes that suffer most. It’s the Middle Class that always gets hit hard. People on welfare still get to vote (for some reason); the (truly) rich have plenty of loopholes in any new laws when the welfare class screams: “Do SOMETHING!” Towards Washington.

@@mikepaulus4766 work harder, stop be a peasant... pull yourself up by your bootstraps.

I could not agree more. COVID should've been the correction - Instead, to save face governments went insane and put us in for a world of hurt. The world literally didn't make anything for 1-2 years (based on shutdowns/lockdowns) yet there was no recession. Nuts.

correction at cost human life

Covid is not done yet

But the economy doesn't care whether you can afford things, as long as *someone* can afford it, it won't go down.

@@dogdick348 if not now then later, at even greater cost

We rebuild the small economy. Rebuild our middle glass

Where are you from?

just destroy blackrock and vanguard, the long nose tribe house of cards will fall soon after as all the people harmed by them will rush to pull their roots out.

And when you get voted out of office for allowing an economic disaster to happen "on principle", the guy from the other party can come into office and be forced to clean up your mess. Those "too big to fail" companies were called that for serious economic reasons.

And when you get voted out of office for allowing an economic disaster to happen "on principle", the guy from the other party can come into office and be forced to clean up your mess. Those "too big to fail" companies were called that for serious economic reasons.

This

I feel as though this is an extremely important issue that this video did not cover. The video talked about all the businesses in an economy as equal, implying that, in all cases, more supply = more better because more supply = more growth. I don’t think this is fair because ultimately, the happiness of the people is all that matters, not the growth of the economy. Just look at china. The most rapid growing economy of all time….for what? A straight up dictatorship? No thank you!

@@unripetomato4312 Not to mention that the happiness of the population is one of the best indicators for a country's future. Nations like Russia and France in particular experienced staggering levels of discontent and wealth inequality shortly before their revolutions, and those factors where precisely what cause the revolutions. Looking again to China, let's consider the fact that they've got one of the highest execution rates per capita on the planet. Now granted, they do have more capital offences than any sane country, but the more of your own citizens you need to kill to maintain the current system, the less stable that system is.

Yep, corporate socialism. Its the redistribution of wealth from one group, whether that be other companies or individuals, to mega-corporations. People often call this crony capitalism, but its the furthest thing from free market capitalism. Mega-corporations weild a HUGE stick and can brow beat or pay off politicians to put in policies that continue this trend. It's nothing more than plain old socialism, which as we all know, always ends in failure.

Yep, it's like trying to create competition between a heavy weight boxer and a kid and calling it survival of the fittest. For there to be competition, you need parties operating on a similar level.

Depends. Through covid I stopped getting lunch at big brands, and tried to help my local cafe. I think it’s more accurate that government’s are more likely to bail out companies that lobby/bribe politicians

Depends how they are funded. I tend to find that some large businesses are often very highly leveraged. I think you are right broadly, especially in certain capital intensive industries such as manufacturing. But there are plenty of "lean" SMEs, who will have much less debt and much less costs to "weather" a recession with.

@@Zantsui I think that was quite a different scenario that wont be replicated agian. People felt adversity together and had to stay local. If you need to pay your bills in a recession, and your local Cafe has lunch for $5 and your huge supermarket has it for $3, your likely to use the supermarket. Most will see protecting their own interests and their family, ahead of anything else.

Im no communist but any economic system that REQUIRES a recession is a system that is rotten to its core.

@UCWj5sZbJ6fNB8Yer0aszFPg I can tell you for free, that a debt laiden, high geared retail or manufacturing conglomerate will go bankrupt. Think retail stores, car manufacturers, aerospace companies, etc etc If they are big, and they have a big amount of debt to service, the recession will harm them.

@FreddieBob You’re acting like there’s some kind of centuries-long plan going on, but I think you’ve forgotten that the middle class shrank in the late 1800’s/early 1900’s and then grew in the 1940’s-1970’s. Why would a plan to destroy the middle class result in decades-long growth? And why would a plan to destroy the middle class take centuries to execute, especially when the middle class is actually a fairly recent invention? In fact, I think the middle class actually became a thing right around the same time this so-called “plan to destroy the middle class” supposedly popped up, which means the plan to destroy the middle class would only resulted in its invention.

@FreddieBob This kind of master planning is almost non existent in the world and people who think this way are mostly distrustful people who can't imagine that different genuinely good or neutral intentions can lead to a negative result. Regulations are generally not pursued specifically to make markets difficult, they are pursued due to bad actors taking advantage. Most systems aren't specifically created to exploit, people selfishly come later and find ways to exploit systems or, even more common, just use the systems to their own benefit without thinking about how it affects others. Kind of like how we don't wonder how that t-shirt or laptop or coffee is so cheap when we buy it. We're just thinking of ourselves, we don't think first that maybe it's cheap because someone is being exploited somewhere. We don't do it intentionally were just not thinking of others, but it does create systems of exploitation

Pleased this effect has been named. A variation of this I have been thinking about is inflation primarily caused by wealth inequality. If you had say 10% of the population control 90% of the wealth (and no investment in increasing goods), the could bid up the price of all goods to where the remaining 90% couldn't afford them. Why wealth inequality isn't included in discussions of increased money supply is highly suspect.

@@oakinwol IMHO, there is little point to differentiating between malice and apathy when it comes to the part of society that wields outsized power in that fashion.

@@rafaelmarkos4489 Society is relationships. In your relationships do people generally engender you to change by attributing all of your inaction, weaknesses, and apathy to malice? In many ways, because of the natural human condition, one could argue that the attribution of malice to people's action is a much much BIGGER problem than apathy. These ways that we judge others, usually more harshly than we judge ourselves, perpetuates these natural behaviors

I can’t focus on the long run when I should be retiring in 3years, you see I’ve got good companies in my portfolio and a good amount invested, but my profit has been stalling, does it mean this recession/unstable market doesn’t provide any calculated risk opportunities to make profit?

There are actually a lot of ways to make high yields in a crisis, but such trades are best done under the supervision of Financial advisor.

The US-Stock Mrkt had been on it’s longest bull-run in history, so the mass hysteria and panic is relatable, considering we’re not accustomed to such troubled mrkts, but there are avenues lurking around if you know where to look, I’ve netted over $850k in the past 10months and it wasn't some rocket-science strat. I applied , I just knew I needed a firm and reliable technque to navigate better in these times, so I hired a portfoilo advlsor.

who is your financial coach, do you mind hooking me up?

Big Credits to 'Ingrid Cecilia Raad'' has a web presence, so you can simply search for, there are some others but it might be difficult to get them, but Janet as been a good guide through the year.

I kind of wish he included the demographic reality that the entire world doesn't have enough consumers because our population will peak at most at 10 billion due to almost nobody having babies. Worst of all, once you start not having as many babies it is extremely hard to get those people to start having babies again. So the current economic downturn is NOT a recession: it's actually worse than a depression. There's actually nothing we can do about it; more than half the world will simply see near apocalyptic levels of collapse. Oops! I guess we should've been having more kids all along. The good news is that the growing nations that see a collapse they can also reverse that to some degree by transitioning back to subsistence farming which results in a major baby boom. In maybe two hundred years those countries will have very healthy economies. By the way, as far as demographics are concerned, the US and Mexico are the only countries outside of Africa that will be able to weather the storm. Although, we Americans need to get started baby making fast or this same demographic reality will hit us too in about 30 to 40 years. This has a knock on effect which is extremely desperate: our levels of research are about to evaporate as the US will be the only country in the world even remotely capable of conducting research, but will be seeing unprecedented levels of isolationism put us back into our shell. The problem with that is that Climate Change isn't exclusively man-made; it is also being caused by other factors that require a scientific solution... And America is going to be hit HARD by Climate Change. Of course, climate change also needs a scientific solution, but I digress. At any measurement we need to find some way of conducting research when globalism doesn't exist. I don't know if any of you are aware, but virtually all of our research in the US relies extensively on other countries: that's why research speeds have gone absolutely insane and tech has been exploding in recent decades. Yeah, the Golden Age of Earth is over. Globalism is dead. Should we try to revive it? Should we just let it happen? Eh, I don't think this corpse can get moving again. The collapse of Globalism is because nobody had enough babies. There's no undoing that. All we can do is seed the eventual return of globalism by having 3 to 5 kids each. As far as Africa goes... It's not a positive outlook. They don't have the education levels to be able to jump start an industrial revolution on their own and global resource supplies actually indicates that Europe might become colonial again. As much as ideology might affect decision making for the better right now... Hunger will change their minds. I'm not really sure how that's going to turn out. It's honestly kind of depressing to think about because Europe doesn't have an out other than conquest. Who knows? Maybe they're invent a new kind of "conquest" that doesn't require human suffering? I sure hope so. Africa could genuinely use Europe's expertise in industrialization... But that just infects Africa with the same problem the rest of the world has so who knows how long that can last?

It's awkward to me that he had it and then lost it, if you have that boom and bust cycle you could literally smooth it out 50% tax on everything above that straight line, 50% stimulus for everything below it, the other half used as a measuring stick, if money runs dry, lower the slope until you get a strate-ish line and no one will run out of money to the point of starving, more workforce, more production, more better, less work for the same lifestyle, free market works only for people who know how to handle it, when you are on loan to buy food it's not so fun and everyone has a bad time not only the person in debt especially in a case of a default.

@@Ryanowning "more cheap houses more kids" quoting my self quoting someone else, If you have cheap housing and cheap food people will want to have kids, more free time more "fun" time, less kids dying in poverty, Expensive food and floorspace => more work time, more mate competition, less kids, it's that simple really, people don't want to make dead children, if the earth is going to explode in 10-20 years why have children, better live your life to the fullest up to that point... Which is kind of the reason why the earth might explode, too many hedge their bets on the earth exploding so will make everything in their power to make that a reality, people really hate loosing a bet, even when it's life at stake. Start betting on the earth living for a trillion years and you may live to see it end in a trillion years with me next to you as we watch the stars turn into blackholes.

@@user-zn4pw5nk2v Explode? Why would Earth explode in 10 to 20 years? What are you even talking about?

@@Ryanowning thanks for the question i wanted it : shorthand for all the ways to mess up live as we know it(doesn't matter which one), global warming, Corporate dystopia, totalitarianism, Nuclear winter, Meeting aliens, on top of the more mundane: famine, AI singularity, people sticking to their screen and forgetting to eat, and all the many many more scenarios. Actually we probably wouldn't meet extraterrestrial aliens only the good old terrestrial ones once we put them there. Just like what happened in America and the three times it was discovered "for the very first time"

This, also all the companies I’ve worked for actually went through a contractor, they pre-plan on laying off their contractors ahead of time, performance is tracked but it’s just lip service lol.

Look up the news article this channel is citing: this video pretty much lied about this. They pulled out because they DIDNT want to play ball with the workers union, and were using this as an excuse. It's the same as current day retail stores pulling out of cities citing "shoplifting" despite no notable increase to reports at the scale claimed. It's all misinformation to put the blame on normal people instead of these corporations.

You might want to change your career trajectory.

how are you here when that paycheck doesn't "even give us the ability to survive"

@@ericpowell4350 I worked for a bank. No seriously, they go through contractors and believe me, the clients are very very rich. There is no reason for them to do that. It is simply out of greed.

Perhaps gov't interference is to blame here? It's very hard to lay off people nowadays given the labor protection granted by law

@@paulomendoza5606 why would you lay off a good employee instead of a bad one if it is already that hard to lay someone off?

@@paulomendoza5606 Hardly, laying off staff because of an economic need to downsize is quite simple if you've actually done an audit and are following a plan. That's pretty iron-clad for any possible lawsuit as long you're being fair in your criteria. Under performing staff are easy to get rid of as long as you bother to track performance, try to work with the staff member to improve it and follow policy. The people who are difficult to remove are executives and managers, they rarely have actual productivity to check and can either hop away to another department or have weaseled their way into a contract where it's less costly to pay an incompetent to sit in a corner than it is to fire them.

My father worked in many American companies for 25 years now (and counting). In the 90's they were in constant growth and everything was hunky-dory, then hit the dot com crash and they had to "restructure". That was understandable, after all it was a massive bubble burst. What's wasn't logical, was that those "restructurings" started happening every 5 years, then every 3 years, every 2 and eventually pretty much annually. The company would annually lay-off workers in one region and... announce hiring shortly after. It didn't matter if sales did well or not, they constantly rotated people. It soon became clear that it was done solely to boost stock prices by employing some accounting wizardry and bullshitting investors with completely sham decisions. It made literally no sense to reorganise everything and have workers waste time readjusting that often, but you could throw it in slides and hope to hire interns to replace senior and mid level staff salaries. In short, it was irrational and it ultimately hurt the productivity of the company, but worked short term. It was a bother for everyone and a lot of stress for those that did get laid off, but it worked for the financial sharks that saw their wallets swell.

@@paulomendoza5606 Usually when there is a layoff, they fire entire teams or close a full single factory. Thus they get rid of both good and bad employees. If the company was auditing individually every employee and offering their employees to move to the other teams/factories (assuming they can move because it would compromise their husband/wife job) then they would get rid of only the bad employees. But that doesn't happen as it would cost money to go that length.

@@ericalorraine7943 lookup Priscilla Dearmin-Turner online, she's the real investment prodigy since the crash and have help me recovered my loses.

I remember listening to Priscilla Dearmin-Turner on CNBC news when she revived Grumac in 2018. She most be so good for everyone to talk about here.

@@davidhudson3001 Thank you, Going through her profile in her webpage, she smashed all her state certificate and accreditation

I just look up her name online and found her webpage, thank you🙏

@@davidhudson3001 as a fellow bot I have a hard time making investment decisions. Thank goodness you showed me her

A recession can delay retirement. I know people who lost hundreds of thousands of dollars so far this year.

@@bobbygunz9254 Would you rather have hyperinflation where costs of living go up 15% per year? The loss of purchasing power will also delay your retirement

@@chris-pj7rk Either they have so much in retirement that hundreds of thousands don’t matter, they made the mistake of not investing more in bonds very close to retirement, or they already had a few years till retirement and they can afford to wait.

@@Chrisstock687

@@marianparker7502< How can this your trader or adviser be reached?>

Economics is mostly alchemy. And yes, most or all economic theories and videos contain multiple instances of "...and then X, Y and or Z corrects for that." Uhhh, right. Okay, but what if X, Y and Z went our for smokes 40 years ago and never came back? Asking for a friend. That part is never addressed, because it's never addressed in the real world, either.

What businesses exactly are capable of literally printing money? (ignoring the money multiplication effects of fractional reserve banking)

@@geeee8933 it's mainly referring to how many big businesses get massive bailouts due to government lobbying, which makes them pretty much immune to this since, y'know, a power company going bankrupt would generally be a bad thing.

Because all those theories treat aggregate supply-demand curves as continuous assuming that there are numerous actors competing at every level of every industry. This is true in many cases, but not when you have hardcore consolidation like we do today. It's like discretizing a signal in electronics: if your steps are tiny with respect to the spectrum of values then you can approximate it like a continuous process. If they are too large to ignore then you're just doing poor modelling. If every industry is operated by a handful of companies OR if every industry has a strategic bottleneck (e.g. many farmers sell to a single suppliers that then supplies many supermarkets) then you can't just pretend that you have real competition. Markets fail more of then then not, particularly the more complex the economy becomes. What you get are those "too big to fail" behemoths that aren't subject to market forces and have incredible political power to skew the playing field in their favour.

@@meganegan5992 that’s not the same as the companies printing money. And I think folks are overestimating the number of companies that are “too big to fail.” Government is most likely to step in to support companies whose failure poses systematic risk to the economy (ie banks); there’s less incentive/reason for the government to prop up a large but still comparatively isolated company in non-financial sectors (look at PG&E, for example)

A 7-10 year business cycle clashes pretty strongly with a 4-8 year political cycle. Nobody wants to be the one to shut down the buffet and put the economy back on a diet.

The same can be said about national governments and UN intervention/aid especially in the third world.

@@EconomicsExplained What about the federal reserve?

So basically, boomers have to go.

@Evan Galea Keynes was absolutely not a brilliant man. He was short sighted and had no understanding of the fundamentals of sustainable economies. Everything he pushed for was for short term success and didn't care about economic longevity because "in the long run, we are all dead". But hey, keep printing money and infinitum and repeat the mistakes of the past, maybe it will work out differently for us.

Mate fight those bogus politicians via camping out with yo mates in the territories spider, uh snake and emu But seriously it feels like you guys are fighting everything from nature to your political to where you are living. Learn just learn whatever you can it will help in the long term.

It's working exactly like the system was designed to. It's what the rich built up and they for sure ain't going to be taking the hit.

There is a theory going around that we should be looking at upper / mid / lower classes as "owner" and "worker" classes. "Owner" class people make most of their money from things they've already setup (passive income) even well off small buisness owners (making 200k+ per year) would be classified as "worker" if they take a active role in the buisness. Without a very foolish child wrecking what their father, grandfather (whomever) set up, the owner class is immune to economic fluctuations. Yeah, they might have to sell their mansion but as little as 4million wisely invested in stock can net you 40k per year. You won't live like royalty, but you'll never go broke.

@@adrianafamilymember6427 And don't forget the fire hawks!

But if you let investors earn money safely forever by always having a bull market, won't it cause the rich to pull away from the poor even faster?

"We pretend we work as they pretend to pay us" - Soviet Worker

"Underperforming" means anything from "I don't like the way you solve problems" to "I don't like your opinions".

Generally people's ability to command higher salary increases with time and only goes down when they near seniority

@@adrianafamilymember6427 and have house for free

The people who refuse to work due to government stimulus will be unemployable when the economy goes into a recession. Every business that sees that gap in the resume and they will know that employee is only worth hiring during a worker shortage. Something similar happened to people who got layed off in 2008.

@@badluck5647 Doubt it.

@@urubissoldat5452 During the great recession, employers were discriminating against people who were unemployed for over a year even though there was a poor job market. What makes you think employers won't discriminate against workers who were unemployed when jobs were plentiful?

@@badluck5647 covid.

@@urubissoldat5452 There hasn't been a lockdown in months. No one is going to believe someone couldn't work for over a year due to covid. Even if you disagree, most HR people I know see it that way.

Eventually people will be forced to demand higher wages just to survive

Capitalism eats itself and the working class pays the price.

Well, the Fed is the reason we have inflation.

Higher profits for the corporations and lower standard of living for the workers

A recession

He said "things in the US are actually fairly good" 15% true inflation, food shortages, supply chain issues, intentional gas shortages, etc say otherwise

The economy being good doesn't mean it's good for the people. The rich are more powerful and more wealthy then ever before

Seriously! Idk how you can factually prove that recessions are necessary and “good” and then be like 100% A-OK with capitalism

@@timothypickarski5234 lol I was being sarcastic

@@timothypickarski5234 yeah capatalism invented economic downturns lol. Show me the miracle system that is perpetually wealthy for all and never blew up in everyone's faces in a single generation

He doesn't want to go missing because some corporation kidnapped him.

Soylent green

I'd go with making starting any kind of business super easy, bureaucracy and taxation wise. So that these people can sell whatever service or good they want and not be tempted to depend on the state. My country has an ongoing problem with the thing he mentioned about Australian automotive workers, plus we have around 5 million people paying taxes and 18 million people receiving subsidies. He have used every social democratic trick in the book and our spiral of permanent decadence continues, the state grows, less people can finance it and more people depend on it.

Society has always had charity to take care of those that "do not make the cut". Governments are just middle men in the normal healthy private charity process

It also avoids the billions of dollars that have been pumped into company stock (it's to save jobs. Honest.) a la quantitative easing and the like (apparently the only kind of bad recession is when it affects stock prices). It sounds suspiciously like heads I win, tails you lose unless you are on a first name basis with the fed.

Well there's several things 1) Just because you don't make the cut as an accountant doesn't mean you won't make the cut as say, a teacher. People change their careers a handful of times throughout their lives (on average), so for many it may just mean a career change to something they're better at or more passionate about. Or it may mean they go back to 6 months or a year of training on the same career to improve and then shoot their shot again. 2) We have a welfare state and charity to help these people 3) Eventually the tides will come back and jobs will be widely available for the vast majority of people again.

Or company flat out exploiting their market gains at the consumer's expense. Think of Apple inventing a new proprietary charger port for their devices, now everyone has to buy a new charger to use these devices rather than continuing to use what they already have. It creates waste too when everyone throws out their old one that still functions perfectly well but it's now obsolete. This isn't "the most efficient distribution of goods". Many companies are incentived to be wasteful to keep demand artificially high.

@@zachj7953 Exactly, just like Amazon was caught dumping hundreds of thousands of unsold products every week. It's more profitable for them to destroy perfectly good products then lower their costs due to excess supply. Grocery stores do the same thing with food all the time, even locking their dumpsters so homeless people can't get at their perfectly good food. Its pretty sickening actually.

Sort of funny. I live in Wisconsin, the US Farm bill ties the price of a hundredweight of milk to the distance from Eau Claire. The furthest place in the US is California. Happy cows don't come from California, happy cow farmers do. Broke dairy farmers come from Wisconsin.

@@zachj7953 help me understand your interesting comment zach. how can something that functions perfectly well become obsolete. thanks

@@DrSchor in this specific "hypothetical", because it no longer is capable of serving its purpose. As soon as the phone, laptop, tablet, or whatever is replaced; all those chargers cannot work. They are incompatible with the new devices, or obsolete, despite the chargers still being capable of functioning they no longer have anything to plug into. But apple will sell you a new charger and cable for an additional $50 to the $1,200+ you just spent on your new phone! (A phone they purposefully designed to stop working after a couple years, forcing this upgrade. That's not even hypothetical, they actually did that)

I lost everything in the last recession and learned from it. I made sure to live below my means and save every possible dollar. I also invested correctly and diversely instead of buying material things, restaurant meals, and expensive vacations. I've been waiting all these years for the next recession so I can capitalize on irresponsible debt. If this video is correct, it will be a very exciting investment shopping spree for me

Consider the economy as one huge engine that produces the life styles that humans live & prosper & create a healthy financially secure future for their families . Corruption, manipulation , creation of unhealthy political policy & diplomatic environments is a recipe for engine failure. People are equally losing money in the financial market in the midst of all these.

Inflation is gradually going to become part of us and due to that fact any money you keep in cash or in a low-interest account declines in value each year. Investing is the only way to make your money grow and unless you have an exceptionally high income, investing is the only way most people will ever have enough money to retire. Personally I hired ‘’Nicole Ann Sabin’’ a financial advisor who I copy her trades and with a good 7% in ROI monthly.

@@Joeryan657 >>

We have been in a recession since 2009 if we use more honest government figures calculated the way they were in the 1980's. Technology has improved our standard of living since then but based on 'the old way' of defining a recession we've been in one for over a decade. The cycle hasn't been bypassed - it has been re-defined away and ignored.

Why did the spending increase? Because of government stimulus, the money were printed out of nowhere, and it will make the recession much worse because of an increased inflation due to a higher monetary supply.

Stimulus wad added because everyone failed to realize, that with goods so easily available, we have transitioned away from saving and waiting in times of crisis. People now try to get everything they may need or want before someone else can get it.

You're at home, no rent to pay, earning more than when you had a real job, so you go shopping

@@donchaput8278 that is actually not the cause of the stimulus Quantitative Easing. It was the fed that injected trillions of dollars into the stock market to avoid companies to default, and at the same time turning down interest rates to 0% again.

They want us to rebel, but they know we won’t.

I gotta wonder how much of that problem is caused by an unwillingness to move though. Not being able to afford a home in San Francisco or NYC is much different than not being able to afford a home in Southbend Indiana for example. How many people could have their quality of life triple just by moving but don't because they don't want to due to family or friends or something else?

If lots of people feel they have nothing to lose, you can bet things aren't gonna look pretty

Revolutions are part of bigger cycles too. Sometimes you need a bloodbath to remember where social classes stand. It doesn't mean that because the workers started it that it will end in their favor though.

It's as if capitalism only benefits the owners at the expense of the working class 🧐🤔

On the contrary, even if you’re not skilled, it is still possible to hire one. I am a project manager and my personal port-folio of approximately $750k took a big hit in April due to the crash. I quickly got in touch with a financial-planner that devised a defensive strategy to protect and profit from my port-folio this red season. I’ve made over $150k since then.

@@instinctively_awesome8283 There's a very bad downturn in my port_folio. lost over 32 thousand this month alone. Would you link me up with your handler?

@@instinctively_awesome8283 This is a scam. None of these people are real.

@@isaacdalziel5772 this are bots report them

agreed. My plan is to wait for trades to get cheaper,, fix up my entry level unit in an amazing location that is unlikely to depreciate much and use the opportunity to buy a bigger place that is more suited to my lifestyle- because those properties are more likely to drop.

Its extremly fucked here in canda. If you join the military pray that you dont get stationed in Vancouver or ontario. Its basically not possible to pay rent on a privates salary.

I am sorry but probably wont. All I expect is small correction just like in 2008, and that crisis was caused by housing market.

@@komerczka The recent gains we saw are unsustainable. So something will give. Already the government is forced to push forward policies to limit speculation and help first time home buyers. As it gets worse more extreme measures will be taking. More things like banning foreign speculators, empty home tax, increase taxes on those owning multiple properties, and taxing speculators more. Making real estate investment unprofitable in the short-term will go really far in reducing demand.

It will depend per country. But in most western Europe (me: Netherlands) there are simply too few houses. A small correction will probably take place (10-15%), but then the housing market will then totally lock up with far too few people sizing up anymore, locking up all price classes. Combined with increased building costs, not getting permits due to environmental issues, and a massive refugee influx. It will get way, way worse.

@@berryvanhalderen7574 In Europe there is an issue with space. Land is very much finite. I live in Canada where land is more plentiful but people crowd to a small number of cities like Toronto and Vancouver. Although supply is kept low because investors buy up majority of available real-estate. I think that is an issue every developed country is facing.

If only there's a solution.. Oh wait, labor unions, get rid of captive audience meetings! Both sides need to compete and both sides need equal bargaining power.

The liberal solution to this is to create more unions. The conservative solution to this is to kill corporate tax cuts, or more importantly kill all corporate subsidies. The problem is politicians rarely follow through on their promises on either side. I'm not a fan of public sector unions but I find some private sector unions to be beneficial as long as they're optional to join and are just a part of the industry rather than dominating the industry like the shoreline workers union for example.

@@kennethkho7165 the problem is that corporations spend millions for union busting

@@kennethkho7165 Here is a thought... evaluate the break up value of a company. Look at Starbucks. They are so screwed. They will be forced to raise prices to absorb the cost of unions. So their already overpriced coffee is more expensive. So the question becomes, will the consumer be priced out of the Starbucks brand? Secondly, how will investors react if their Starbucks stocks aren't preforming as expected? Third, unions do very little for customer service. You can't fire the worst hire. My guess? Starbucks is considering all their options.

This was addressed when he said that if governments providing support undermines the requirement of investers to make sure they are investiing in strong companies. In fact the negative effects of government support for failing business was a key point in the video.

@@rcmwalker1987 it was not specified for large corporations and the inherent advantages they have though. I wanted a more detailed explanation in general.

@@metalknight599 large business ≠ economically nonsensical. Large business are more likely to be "strong" compared to small or medium ones, since more effective business tends to expand

I think we can infer from the comments on government support in the video

You're basically arguing to keep the economy well short term in exchange for increasing the risk long term. We're in a state were it eventually will happen

@@tomlxyz Our technology has vastly improved the amount of resources we can produce. If we want to maintain this new normal, then we must keep productivity up. And in a decade there will be a new new normal which requires even more productivity. But maybe, i'd argue, it'd be fine for CEOs to have to sacrifice a couple yachts in order to afford employees. That, perhaps, it wouldn't kill the shareholders to have to occasionally eat at McDonald's because the employees aren't working themselves to death for fear of being fired. That maybe, the economy would be fine if a smidge of negotiating power was given to the workers. That maybe, it would be nice, if everyone with the desire to exchange their labour for money, could do that, instead of sitting around producing nothing. But- you could be right that despite continually rising real gdp per capita (far outpacing median income), we haven't increased how many people we can afford to employ. But I'm doubtful.

@@the1exnay companies don't employ as many people they can afford, they employ as few people as possible. The former is dysfunctional

@@user-fd8fe9hk9q yeah. I was just saying that i don't believe it's a bad thing for those people that they do employ to have bargaining power. Despite the likelihood that they will use that power for things other than increasing GDP. And i was relatedly saying that i don't believe that full employment is a bad thing. There's plenty to be said about whether particular measures to reach full employment are good ideas or bad ideas. But I wasn't talking about that in my comments

Oh yes please

This!

Credit Expansion is generally the reason why bubbles form in the first place. If someone wants to "solve" the problem and not take their lumps, the solution is more credit expansion, but faster this time. The business cycle isn't really all that natural, but formed by cycles of credit expansion and contraction. Before Central Banks collapses and ressessions were usually short lived and centralized, and the source of the expansion was banks that overleveraged themselves at the expense of those who saved their money in then. Since the central bank formed, what would be a local problem limited to a single industry now encompases the entire economy, and the reason why is that the central bank is the biggest source of credit expansion in the system. All banks are interconnected, and because banks can't fail it just means that they throw our money around and when they lose it they can ask for the government to cover their losses and the central bank to loan or print them money.

It depends on who you ask if this is going to be bad. In '08 banks, despite selling junk debt, got off scot-free. They even got to keep most of the real estate while the market 'recovered'. That's why real estate prices never really went back to 1940's prices. Whatever happens now, I'm quite confident that the current players at the table have a trick up their sleeve to keep and even grow their capital through the next bust cycle. One does wonder if all the junk is not going to surprise them with a black swan event.

@@jakman2179 Look into Kondratieff waves. This cycle of major booms and busts has been around through all of capitalism. The Great Depression happened in a time when the dollar was pegged to gold and the central bank had very little influence. Kondratieff waves are caused when an economy reaches its maximum growth utilization rate. The easiest way to visualize this was the railroad expansion in the 1840’s. When the railroads were being built, there was massive demand for the companies building the railroad, as well as all of the peripheral industries that supported the building of railroads. Once all of the tracks had been laid down, the demand for new railroads fell off and the entire economy collapsed. That collapse freed up capital for the next crest which was electrification. The 2008 crash was the collapse of the tech sector. There was massive tech growth as everyone was buying computers and tvs and cell phones, but once everyone had them, there was no real need to replace them. Therefore tech industries have to spend more and more on research in hopes that their newest iteration will convince enough people to replace their existing products to make a profit. It has reached it’s maximum growth utilization rate and rather than letting the collapse recirculate all of that tech capital, QE pumped a bunch of money into the stock market to make those companies appear profitable again, at least on the surface (think stock buybacks). Credit expansion therefore plays a role, as it increases the purchasing power of the economy and drives the increase in the growth utilization rate, but it is not the only factor. These collapses would happen with or without the influence of central banks.

@@TheCommonS3Nse You're actually wrong about the depression and dollar being pegged. It was unpegged for most of it and ignores the credit expansion that was occuring then. Unless a currency is near 100% backed it tends to create the credit expansion waves. Additionally, for an organization that "didn't have much influence" they seemed to do a good job of inflating the Dollar for the benefit of the Pound Sterling after WW1. It's worth pointing out that also caused a crash around 25, but a much amaller and shorter one because it was ridden to the bottom. I'm not convinced by the Kondratieff Wave theory, but will keep my opinion on it at that as I need more research into it.

A bit of research and I'm not having glowing hopes for it. Every single Downturn it claims is also attached to a period of credit expansion preceding it. There may be a coinciding effect of the 'peak' of a technology, but calling them the source of them seems faulty. 1837, The Second Bank of America was disbanded shortly before it occured. 1870s, shortly after the civil war when Greenbacks were used to pay for the war, and the Bank of England was overleveraged. 1930s, Central Banks of multiple countries were printing money because of war debts. The Central Bank in US helped keep the show going until it couldn't and collapsed, the recession that followed was exacerbated into a depression by policies that attempted to stop the correction. 1970s, stagflation from super low interest rates and an overregulated economy topped by the oil crises.

What would you categorize the 2008 one as?

@@blaisetelfer8499 I would say that was a minor one because we bounced back pretty well from it.

@@beastmode3079 The panic 1867? The great depression was pretty obvious

How about deal with none ever? That would be a much better alternative, and definitely achievable.

It isn't. No country can avoid recessions.​@@programking655

We didn’t have wage stagnation? During these last months wages have increased

@@conor2683 I'm taking about for most of the last few decades. Obviously now some wages are going "up", though it's not actually compensating for all the inflation that has happened.

I'm from Argentina. Inflation always makes our real salaries (measured in USD) go down with time, it makes us poorer. If I was asked what do I want, instead monetary policies being forced down my throat by the government and the Central Bank, I'd choose an inflation rate of 0,0% ± 1%.

@@gaston6814 A great portion of the "inflation" is merely from cappies raising prices just to increase profits, not because they have to.

We have the opposite of wage stagnation right now we have a death spiral of wage increases actually. Workers demand higher wages > Workers receive higher wages > businesses offset higher wages by increasing prices > prices of everything goes up > Workers demand higher wages...

Pretty much. Inflation happens when there's lots of cash and not enough goods. Current issues were perfectly predictable.

nothing to do with it? you must be an npc

Buy now dude. That's how buy low sell high means.

@@mikejpounder Yuh.. Weird how people get all depressed when share shopping time falls in their laps!!?!!?! :D

@@mikejpounder ^This guy gets it In my eyes the red lines are all just discounts🤑

We currently have roughly a 40% unemployment rate in the USA (only about 60% of the population is employed); this is before you take into account the number of those employed who are only part-time or otherwise 'casual workers'. Situation is a fair bit more severe & grim now than the numbers in the fed's cooked books would imply.

@@DBArtsCreators the fed neither a saint or hope Agustin just there

So biden admin lied? Imagine my shock.

The reason so many can’t find full time work though is because companies do t want to higher full time workers cause full time workers get benefits like healthcare while part time workers don’t so it’s cheaper for a company to have 3 part time workers that work for less $ and no benefits than 1 full time worker who’s pay will slowly increase and does receive benefits. Could it be argued that the highest paid full time workers would be the first to go?

@@kayleehogness7184 That sounds right, based on the fact that we live in a capitalistic economy and how the world/businesses priotitise profit over the needs of people working for them. Which is why I believe we should become socailists.

Here we go our gen(Z) might be broke for awhile but its conditioning us.

Um, how about no. Recessions are always (almost always) the result of policy errors. There is no need for a deep recession.

Agreed. What is logic.

I'm glad you like the content . The helpline is shown above👆 I'll introduce you to something new.••

Its not like they need that excuse. The Trump tax cuts passed after all. And are mostly still in effect if i remember right

Exactly

That would only ever really be possible if people were immortal and had no children. But humans make other humans, oftentimes the next generation is bigger, sometimes not, but the next generation is always different. They may want different things necessitating a changing of production and supply, they may be more productive or less productive than the ones who came before again necessitating change. This constant regeneration of the human species is why stability, not just in economics, but in all facets of the human condition is almost impossible, as we are not our parents and our children will not be us, they will be themselves and they will need a world different from our own.

Raise taxes and lower government spending during peaks. Lower taxes and raise government spending during troughs. Seems like we only do the latter during the entire cycle.

@@JakoWako That was the plan but nobody follow it because they tend to get lobbied out by the big corporation.

Possibly, but such model was there for generations and it seems like we were not happy with that.

Check out japan's economy to see how deflation affects a nation. It is just as hard to control as inflation. You cant just say we need deflation the same way you cant just say we need inflation. They are not tools for the economy, they are measurements.

If the government mandated that ALL wages, not just minimum wage, but ALL wages scaled 1:1 with inflation and deflation, there would be no negative impact of inflation and deflation. The problem is our wages stay the same regardless of the value of our wages, meaning when inflation rises, we make the same dollar today yet we need 2 dollars to buy the same thing that cost a dollar yesterday. If we made 2 dollars today, our net real purchasing power would stay the exact same.

@@wafercrackerjack880 Yes but if wages rose and fell 1:1 with inflation and deflation our purchasing power would remain exactly the same regardless of the value of the dollar.

@@KingBrandonm that's what everyone wants, but do you have any idea how to do that? Nobody knows how to do that exactly. It's not as easy as just deflating prices so that everything becomes affordable. There's a reason why managing the economy is a hard job and add to that people like you screaming like everything can be fixed just by pressing a button.

@@wafercrackerjack880 the economy works the way it does because every economical actor looks for its own interest, the salaryman demands wage increases or that the wage follows inflation if he likes his wage, and the company wants to spend as little as possible on wages, the aggregate of all these wants and the decisions that follow them is an economy

We should go back to feudalism

its almost like capitalism is destined to fail

How better did things become after the latest bubble?

@John Dew Bruh how're you too young? I was born in 2000 and remember being poor. Not being able to buy anything, having to give up my savings so that my brothers and sisters could eat.

@John Dew . 2008 was the closest thing we had to the crash in 1929 which set the country back a couple decades until WWII got us back on track. Millions of people lost their home and even more were left unemployed in 2008. For those affected it was pretty bad. For anyone who had a portfolio with stocks it was also pretty bad as the market got cut in half. Who knows how many millions of Americans had to postpone retirement for many years as a result of the 2008 crash.

@@marinapavlova5128 Well, I wouldn’t say they got better after the housing bubble burst, mostly cuz all the same problems have been perpetuated through to this day. But, if this bubble bursts and housing actually gets attainable for the average person again, that would certainly be a positive outcome.

@@Midas526 do you think housing is the solution? Though I agree owning a house has its perks many people brush off the pros of apartments. Affordable housing. Efficient land development, prosperous communities due to dense living. Then again owning a home is nice.

A lot of people are waking up to the fact that "good for the economy" does not translate to "good for me".

Tax the rich. They have too much money we just need to scrape it back. The longer they have it the longer they will bid up asset prices and buy up all the commodities and real estate

@@oakinwol The people who would make the decision to “tax the rich” are filthy rich themselves. People like nancy pelosi and mitch mcconell would never shoot themselves in the foot like that. I’m all for taxing the rich, but only if they stop taxing the poor. Middle and lower class people shouldn’t be paying federal income taxes

@@oakinwol they can evade taxes. In addition to off shore tax havens they do stuff take out loans with their assets as collateral at a 0% interest rate. The banks allow this because it curries them favor in business. Now the rich file their taxes and had no income because the loan is counted as debt, they get to spend that money tax free. They have many more exploitations of the tax code like this. We need politicians who are willing to close these loop holes and fund the IRS after they're closed to go after these robber barons. In summation, tax the rich isn't nearly enough to counteract the entrenched power structure they've built for themselves.

@@zachj7953 I hear what you're saying, but honestly it's just more excuses. Black people in America had every reason to think they couldn't change this country. The power was much more intrenched and it was literal animosity they were dealing with not simply rich people apathy and selfishness. But leaders like MLK fought, and they fought hard, and they fought peacefully, and they didn't stop, and they gave up their lives for it. People who want to sit at home comfortable or walk in protest once a year and expect change are just virtue signaling. No one was ever given anything in any country. People fought. And the peaceful fights are the ones that bring about the most lasting change most consistently. Black people walked instead of riding the bus. It was frigging hard, but they did it. And the busses changed. What are we willing to do is the question. Are we all willing to go through some hardship and support each other to fix the system? And if we cant even support each other through hardship why should rich people care enough to come out their current pockets to do it?

Those "difficult times" seems like heaven compared to what is presently being experienced and what lies ahead. It's amazing how people won't stop moaning about high interest rates when the alternative is so much worse.

technology has been steadily improving for the last 2.5 million years after people started using stone tools. invention of new technology is nothing new.

Well said

@@DrSchor technology hasn't been improving linearly it's been improving at an accelerating rate and will continue to do so. People have a built-in biological limit how quickly they can adapt to change and does that change happens more quickly it overwhelms the innate biological capacity of humans.

@@hidesbehindpseudonym1920 hello hides. I did not know that people have a built in biological limit. fascinating stuff. what is an example of the overwhelmed human capacity? thanks for teaching.

Very true, for every 10 jobs destroyed by automation/AI only 2-3 jobs are being created. We're eventually going to get to a point where there are not enough jobs for everyone and, as a society, we need to start planning for that eventuality.

There is nowhere near enough passive investment to do that and even if there was all it would do is open an opportunity for active investors. Any problem here is self correcting.

Yeah it becomes a problem if all the investments are passive and end up in the same index funds and etfs.

Strangely, I would have thought markets would be the best at determining how capital is deployed. Nope, nope; it's investors who make a planned economy.

This is completely wrong. Investors are NOT the same as the principal agents that manage the company who might also be investors.

@@MrSupernova111 Sorry, most large US companies are not largely owned by the managers. They're owned by diversified portfolio's who will just experience a 0.01-5% hit if something goes awry with the company. The executives will actually be more incentivized to 'manage' the majority investor expectations, which is to do buybacks or increase dividends. Passive holders are actually very nefarious, theyre fine up to a certain point because they rely on active investors to know what to allocate to.

It's almost like competition is a mythology for capitalism while monopolies are what actually define capitalism!

So long as you don't use it to look down on other people like these wannabe entrepreneurs on Facebook saying "its the market" as an excuse to keep prices the same

Eh saving is pointless. If you die tomorrow saving us worthless Live in the moment .

You've pretty much summarised my thoughts on that subject. I wouldn't think that a few workers taking sickies to extend long weekends is a peculiarity of the motor industry or of Australia in general but other industries survive it nonetheless. Indeed, Australian car manufacturers were by & large held up as models of efficiency for low volume output by their foreign overlords. Other Australian industries that largely didn't survive include whitegoods and other household appliances, textiles & footwear and other mass produced consumer goods I can't think of at present, and all for the same reasons that the motor industry disappeared (apart from the bit that you point out where the latter persisted with products that people no longer wanted to buy).

You make a great point. I think EE's thesis falls apart once you realize that businesses are not a meritocracy (what is). Businesses survive because they are well connected, "too big too fail", and/or very lucky. During a downturn, investors will try to make safer investments but does that necessarily translate to better? I am not convinced.

It doesn’t matter if it tanks. Just ride it out and wait for it to eventually go up again. The economy recovered after the crash of 1929 and it recovered after 2008. Those who held on to their 401ks in 2008 were fine, it was only those who cashed out who suffered and lost money. Unless you’re close to retiring, that is.

@@praetorian389 Question is whether the vehicle will be just scratched and everything will be fine after tires are replaced, or whether we will have to get a new one. And I think that the west will have to replace significant portions of our economic vehicle as it is squeaky and there are huge holes in the gas tanks. You know, we are losing money to various strange countries for oil and natural gas.

The government won’t fix anything. What we need is for the government to keep their hands out and let the market find its own equilibrium.

@@rangvald4036 no, the market optimizes for profit and that doesn't necessarily align with the what society needs. The people of a country are it's government when the government is set up correctly. They can make decisions as a collective.

@@jasonlaboy funny

@@jasonlaboy standing in a political standpoint you’re not wrong - but viewing economics with politics in mind means that you’re entering the real world - compromises, voters, enterprises - my point is, economy on its own should be a natural selection: people who lack understanding or action have to go, good or bad; it’s a matter of removing a member of the society that contributes negatively in terms of economy with only two tools: time and money. The reality is this process is never “natural” cuz human intervention is almost always biased. Counting on politicians while not being one is simply a pov of pushing that responsibility of naturally eliminating the problem to the government completely -> do you see the problem on both sides now?

@@rangvald4036 Oh, yeah, the infamous Market's invisible Hand... Do you still believe in fairy tales ?

Problem was that Trump enacted policy for approval/electability. It didn’t have much to do with economic planning. The largest QE jump was at the start of CoVID, at the end of Trump

Most economists have the luxury of never being the ones sacrificed at the altar of The Economy, so I guess the attitude makes sense.

@@rafaelmarkos4489 I honestly don't judge those more fortunate than myself for not understanding a situation they've never been in. Unfortunately, I think some modern societies lack the ability to feel and show empathy. You needn't have given birth to appreciate that a person who just birthed a whole new human will likely need time to recuperate and relax etc. In the same way, I like to think that a little empathy might go a long way in helping to fix this strange mindset that 'The Economy' is somehow more important than actual living human beings...

@@yoouu4168 Mostly because by the time Christianity rolled around, we had other means of ensuring harvests... there was a time before that in 'the west' as you describe it.

@@yoouu4168 First, that's definitely not true, you do not want to know what your enlightened European ancestors used to get up to before the Christians got around to existing (and even quite a bit after depending on where they were from), and second, even if it was, what has it got to do with her point?

I agree Ideally, the purpose of the democratic state in a market economy should be to balance the accumulative tendencies of the market with redistribution. The Financial crisis should have led to more money being redistributed to the lower classes through increased taxation of those who've benefited most and consequently investment into the rest of the population.