BlackRock's Larry Fink says the recession is already here

[rcjordan]

https://qz.com/blackrock-larry-fink-recession-trump-tariffs-1851775108

[littleman]

Fortunately, I was 45% cash before the slide down.  I think this one has the potential to be long and deep.  I wish I we had some indication of what inflation is going to be like in the next 12 months.  No doubt it is going to be higher, but by how much?

[ergophobe]

By Monday, hedge fund billionaires — many of whom had been loud and proud boosters of Mr. Trump's second term — were going public with their cries... The state of affairs has shocked financiers who enjoyed access to decision-making by presidents of both parties.

Wall Street Bursts With Anger Over Tariff 'Stupidity'
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/08/business/trump-tariff-wall-street-reaction.html

[rcjordan]

Elect a Clown, Expect a Circus.

Bumper sticker here:
https://www.amazon.com/JR-Studio-Expect-Sticker-Waterproof/dp/B07RNFNHD5/147-9404587-3607343

[rcjordan]

Jamie Dimon now says a recession is probably coming

[rcjordan]

JUST IN: US Consumer Sentiment Plummets to Second-Lowest Level in Over 75 Years

https://www.mediaite.com/news/just-in-us-consumer-sentiment-plummets-to-second-lowest-level-in-over-75-years/


Consumer sentiment hits 2025 low amid tariff, trade war worries. The downturn reflects rising concerns over inflation, interest rates, geopolitical instability, and abrupt policy changes

https://qz.com/consumer-sentiment-declines-april-2025-1851775805

[littleman]

Trump can't keep playing Munchausen by proxy with the US economy without eventually doing real permanent damage.

[ergophobe]

I think long-term damage has already been done. Already businesses around the world who are looking for a calm port are looking elsewhere for suppliers. Once that's done and contracts are inked, it's no longer enough to match someone on price, you have to beat them on price and payment terms and all that.

Side note: for 45 years, they have been telling us that if we just make the people at the top wealthy, prosperity will "trickle down" to everyone and lift all boats. Suddenly, these same people (Bessent in particular) are saying, "Don't worry, this is just rich people losing money. It won't affect you."

At most, one of those things can be true.

I think that neither one is true. I suppose one thing I've learned over the course of my life is that most of the simple explanations and solutions that I believed in were wrong. It was much easier to be right about everything when I was 20.

[littleman]

>trickle down

This was a believable theory in the 1980s, but in my opinion it has been disproven from the last 40 years of economic data.  We've had an accumulation of wealth at the top and much less opportunity for those in the bottom 50%.

I am convinced that some want a permanent underclass of cheap labor.

[rcjordan]

>I am convinced that some want a permanent underclass of cheap labor.

Ditto

[Brad]

>trickle down

I was skeptical back in the 1980's but I did go along with it.  But both parties have bought into it for 40 years and it has not worked.  In fact it has been a disaster.

>underclass

Yes, I agree.  What good is having all that wealth if you have nobody to lord it over.

[ergophobe]

> permanent underclass of cheap labor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_army_of_labour

[rcjordan]

"His argument is that as capitalism develops, the organic composition of capital will increase, which means that the mass of constant capital grows faster than the mass of variable capital. Fewer workers can produce all that is necessary for society's requirements. In addition, capital will become more concentrated and centralized in fewer hands.

This being the absolute historical tendency under capitalism, part of the working population will tend to become surplus to the requirements of capital accumulation over time. Paradoxically, the larger the wealth of society, the larger the industrial reserve army will become."

[ergophobe]

Yup. I read the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 when I was 18 or 19 I guess and while it did not make a Marxist out of me, it did help me see the economy in way that typical classical economists did not.

Marx tends to get discounted because his prescriptions for the economic future turned out to be economic failures that led to totalitarianism... minor bug in the system, as it were.

But he was observing capitalism at a period when it was at its most unfettered and its basic nature was most apparent. As bad as his solution to the problems was, his analysis of the problems was insightful.

Certain things like the reserve army of labor, the theory of surplus value, and things like that are impossible to unsee in pretty much any economy once you've seen them.

[littleman]

>reserve army of labor

Yet, we are moving away from the need for labor, so it would seem those making the decisions are not motivated purely by resource (human labor) allocation.  Perhaps the motivation is more psychological?  The need for an underclass is the same as the need for opulence?  Maybe it is hard to enjoy the accumulation of purchasing power unless it is contrast with those who want?  "Your suffering validates my accomplishments, it makes me better than you".