I don't see the proposal mentioned at https://mastodon.social/@axios/112187928102716826 having any impact on bank runs. Bank runs happen because people begin to believe their funds are at risk. In any system other than "pay us a set fee for holding your money", banks will depend on lending (making loans, buying bonds, wiring funds overnight to help weaker institutions look stronger on official forms) ... and as long as that is the case, a bank run is possible.
Under fee-based funds-holding, banks could have 100% of deposits in a quickly-available form and defuse the rumors that "Bank X is in trouble and you might lose money if you don't withdraw immediately".
Having said all that, I'm not advocating that we replace lending-based banking with fees-based banking. For one thing, someone would still need to provide lending-based funding to Americans ... from credit cards to car loans to home loans. !econusa
> It's easy to understand why some investors have been quick to declare victory over inflation. The broadest CPI measure climbed just 0.2% for the month of June, which was less than many economists had projected for the month. June's reading brought the year-over-year inflation rate to just 3%, which is the lowest for that measure in more than two years.
The easy part of the fight against inflation is over, says The Motley Fool. Last year's inflation surge ended after June, so annualized moving averages lost a big upward component. And energy price deflation probably ending also. After this, cutting measured price inflation will mean tackling underlying issues.
> As optimistic as investors were, there are plenty of reasons to remain concerned about inflation. Even with the decline in monthly core inflation rates, the year-over-year rise there was still 4.8%. That's more than double the Fed target.
> For those who prefer the broader CPI measure, it's important to recognize that the overall figure got a big push downward from a 16.7% plunge in energy prices over the past year. It's not out of the realm of possibility that prices for gasoline, heating oil, and other energy products could continue to fall, but it's more likely that energy will stop exerting so much downward pressure on overall CPI numbers from here on out.
I think we're getting things confused. Price inflation is generally a symptom and effect of inflation itself. Inflation is generally stated as an increase in the money supply that is in excess of population growth and GDP growth.
In response to more money being available, sellers raise prices. Or if they do not, buyers buy more stuff, and sellers raise prices until economic growth and population growth match the increased money supply. So prices can surge because (1) "money printer go brrrr" or because (2) more demand, but 'widget' output remains the same.
We really need for articles covering !econusa to distinguish between inflation (the money printing issue) and price inflation (which is usually an effect thereof). Educate your readers, so they'll understand how various policy choices can affect them. Even the current Fed chair (Jerome Powell) and the secretary of the treasury (Janet Yellen) seem to confuse the two, but that may be their way of not acknowledging that it was primarily their actions that spawned this cycle of increased prices.
Someone concludes that price inflation is likely to stay North of 5% for the foreseeable future. Reasoning here: https://nostr.build/i/3052i.jpg !econusa
The "Yard Sale":{https://pudding.cool/2022/12/yard-sale/} model is a generalized #economic model that helps to explain the emergence of super-rich people in the economy as something that can happen by pure chance if the system does not redistribute enough wealth (not just income!).
Why not just income? Because a lot of wealth comes about by purchasing some appreciating asset and then holding it while its value increases. The value of shares in $CORPORATION may rise even if it doesn't pay out dividends (e.g., no income to the shareholders), who may not sell for decades. In the meantime, the stock's selling price times the number of shares held gives a wealth value that can be borrowed against, despite the shareholder(s) not having received that value as income. In the simulations on the site, income would be the funds gained from interacting / gambling / trading with others, but wealth would be the amount stored in each person's wallet.
> Currently in the US, the wealthiest 20% of families own about 70% of wealth. But this doesn't capture the true wealth disparity in the US: If the US population was represented by 1,000 people in a room, the richest one person would have four times more money than the poorest 500 people.
> Americans pay a lot of taxes, and the rich are usually taxed more than the poor. And for the most part, that money is used for government programs that usually help the poor more than the rich.
I disagree there. For example, when there's a "public benefit" project, your city / county / state doesn't knock down the mini-mansions in the rich part of town, they knock down homes and apartments in the lower-income areas. A big part of government spending goes into activities that stimulate selected business organizations, which are rarely owned by lower-income people or minorities. Even things like the Affordable Care Act wind up lining the pockets of big insurance companies and leaving lower-income people paying for care out-of-pocket because of insurance denials.
More references are at the bottom of the article. I think I'm going to try to read more about this topic.
> In his press conference after that decision on Wednesday, Powell returned to the theme. Right now, he said, wages are growing “well above what would be consistent with 2% inflation.”
> The pivotal question for Fed officials is whether the climb in US pay over the past 18 months or so is a one-time bump — as companies adjust to scarce labor supply, and a realization that their workforce was under-compensated — or a pernicious feedback loop in which prices and wages drive each other up.
He still doesn't seem to understand how shortages of products caused by offshoring and just-in-time inventories (e.g., management-by-fad) and the housing price spiral are huge parts of recent price inflation ... or how wages rose less than prices for decades and are only recently starting to respond. He has spent all of this year talking about how employees need to be punished. His goal appears to be that people will be willing accept a minimum wage job at Gree-C Burger and living in pup tents underneath nearby bridges.
Nor do he or Janet Yellen accept responsibility for their roles in rapidly expanding the money supply, providing the underlying inflation that allows the price inflation to proceed.
For these and other reasons, Mr Powell needs to be removed from office before he can hurt Americans even more than he already has.
#Kraken, the 3rd-largest #cryptocurrency exchange, lays off 30% of its workforce, returning to the size it was late last year. Employees will receive 16 weeks of severance pay and benefits vesting will be extended. (Much better than what the Lane furniture company did.)
This could be more fallout from the failure of SBF's #FTX and associated companies, or it could be cyclical economic factors ... as cryptocurrency prices seem to rise and fall with the general economy.
Remember, the Fed Chairman and a former Treasury Secretary have both come out in favor of reducing the availability of employment offers in order to knock down inflation, which likely means they'll be so focused on chopping down employment in order to deal with inflation (partly caused by Fed and Treasury policies, and partly caused by continuing supply shortages) that they are most likely to miss the economy's turning point and cause a deep and long contraction.
> Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Larry Summers says there needs to be a surge in unemployment to curb inflation > According to Bloomberg News, Summers said in a speech on Monday from London that there needs to be a lasting period of higher unemployment to contain inflation — a one-year spike to 10%, two years of 7.5% unemployment or five years of 6% unemployment. With idiots like this, I'm surprised that we're not in the midst of a very bloody Marxo-communist revolution.
Say it with me: The current price inflation surge is not because too many common people are making too much money. It is because of corporate mismanagement (relying on imports and just-in-time inventories & production) causing shortages. And because the Fed and Treasury pumped trillions of dollars into the economy while these shortages continued.
Focusing on the wrong cause just means that the Treasury and the Federal Reserve together will cause a very deep recession or even a depression because they will miss the turning point.
With all the data that our economic leadership has, why are they missing things that a basic high school econ course would have taught them?
I think Powell's misanalysis of the causes of the current inflation spike may very likely cause the Federal Reserve's #FOMC (Federal Open Market Committee) to raise rates too much and too late, tipping the economy into recession.