Well, we have a regime that hates any negative news, so they got rid of negative news and those who would deliver negative news.
They’ve been remiss in collecting data as well. The most damning point is that the Fed seems governed by what most benefits the President personally versus what would help all Americans.
-Sliced- on
“Henrik Zeberg” is not a top economist.
He is a trash level speculator that said things like Bitcoin to $250k, that the market would crash in 2024, that gold is headed to $35k, that no one should invest in stock and bond, but should shift to commodities and gold.
A6ixR on
I’m skeptical of the headline, but not the underlying concern.
When people say “the Fed is blind,” I don’t think that’s quite right. It’s not blindness, it’s institutional lag and incentive alignment. The Fed optimizes for aggregates, credibility, and not being wrong too early, not for minimizing individual or distributional pain.
That said, “massive recession” feels overstated. What we’re seeing looks more like prolonged economic pressure rather than an imminent collapse. You don’t need a 2008-style event for things to feel recessionary to a large portion of the population.
Unemployment ticking up matters, but what matters more is where the pain is concentrated. Younger workers, gig workers, renters, and people without assets are getting squeezed long before it shows up cleanly in the data.
My takeaway? The Fed isn’t clueless, they’re late by design. And the real risk isn’t a sudden crash, it’s how much quiet strain can build before something breaks. It’s going to get more interesting in May 2026, I anticipate a difference in headline tonality lol.
Curious what people think the actual trigger would be if this does escalate: labor, credit, or consumer demand finally snapping?
jennysonson on
I put Economists in the same boat as the top sociology graduate, political science, and the nice lady who does tarot card fortune telling at the christmas fair.
Pirrt on
I think what’s scarier is that we’ve clearly been in a form of global recession for at least a year.
You can pick indicators that prove and disprove this but the sentiment on main street is clear that we’re in a recession.
However, AI spending and the fact the economy/governments have basically moved to serve a plutocracy means that we don’t see this in all indicators yet.
My worry is what happens when wealthy people either decide not to spend or there is a legitimate dip in the stock market which impacts the wealthy people’s perception of wealth?
If they stop spending the whole economy collapses now. There isn’t really a middle class to buoy up an economy anymore. It’s wealthy people living great lives and everyone else is buying food and paying rent. This looks even worse when you look at government debt as you know governments don’t have the fire power to stop any real collapse anymore.
This genuinely could become the worst recession in history and it’s simply because all the wealth is within a tiny group of people. If they can’t be coerced into continually spending through the pain then the whole system collapses.
Avoidtolls on
It’s not a recession if the president can get rich,
specifically funneling money directly from corporations and businesses for services while diverting funds (our money that we worked hard for) from the treasury into his pockets.
Psychological-Map441 on
This isn’t new and the Fed will be aware of this but they have a larger range of considerations.
If it was a singular employment remit then there is grounds for an interest rate cut. Inflation is the dynamic the Fed is really afraid of.
Add to this that the Fed isn’t the only actor governing employment and Inflation. The US government also has an arguably larger role in determining their joint trajectory.
This “economists ” appears to be pushing propaganda rather than fact based professional opinion.
Read with caution.. and yes a recession is on the cards, but how deep depends on the government not just the Fed.
AlfaHotelWhiskey on
I was taught that 5% unemployment is healthy for an economy. 4.6% shouldn’t be so alarming in the big picture. I guess the real issue is what is the quality of employment people are finding and how many people aren’t being counted in that 4.6%. At some point you just fall off from being counted?
8 Comments
Well, we have a regime that hates any negative news, so they got rid of negative news and those who would deliver negative news.
They’ve been remiss in collecting data as well. The most damning point is that the Fed seems governed by what most benefits the President personally versus what would help all Americans.
“Henrik Zeberg” is not a top economist.
He is a trash level speculator that said things like Bitcoin to $250k, that the market would crash in 2024, that gold is headed to $35k, that no one should invest in stock and bond, but should shift to commodities and gold.
I’m skeptical of the headline, but not the underlying concern.
When people say “the Fed is blind,” I don’t think that’s quite right. It’s not blindness, it’s institutional lag and incentive alignment. The Fed optimizes for aggregates, credibility, and not being wrong too early, not for minimizing individual or distributional pain.
That said, “massive recession” feels overstated. What we’re seeing looks more like prolonged economic pressure rather than an imminent collapse. You don’t need a 2008-style event for things to feel recessionary to a large portion of the population.
Unemployment ticking up matters, but what matters more is where the pain is concentrated. Younger workers, gig workers, renters, and people without assets are getting squeezed long before it shows up cleanly in the data.
My takeaway? The Fed isn’t clueless, they’re late by design. And the real risk isn’t a sudden crash, it’s how much quiet strain can build before something breaks. It’s going to get more interesting in May 2026, I anticipate a difference in headline tonality lol.
Curious what people think the actual trigger would be if this does escalate: labor, credit, or consumer demand finally snapping?
I put Economists in the same boat as the top sociology graduate, political science, and the nice lady who does tarot card fortune telling at the christmas fair.
I think what’s scarier is that we’ve clearly been in a form of global recession for at least a year.
You can pick indicators that prove and disprove this but the sentiment on main street is clear that we’re in a recession.
However, AI spending and the fact the economy/governments have basically moved to serve a plutocracy means that we don’t see this in all indicators yet.
My worry is what happens when wealthy people either decide not to spend or there is a legitimate dip in the stock market which impacts the wealthy people’s perception of wealth?
If they stop spending the whole economy collapses now. There isn’t really a middle class to buoy up an economy anymore. It’s wealthy people living great lives and everyone else is buying food and paying rent. This looks even worse when you look at government debt as you know governments don’t have the fire power to stop any real collapse anymore.
This genuinely could become the worst recession in history and it’s simply because all the wealth is within a tiny group of people. If they can’t be coerced into continually spending through the pain then the whole system collapses.
It’s not a recession if the president can get rich,
specifically funneling money directly from corporations and businesses for services while diverting funds (our money that we worked hard for) from the treasury into his pockets.
This isn’t new and the Fed will be aware of this but they have a larger range of considerations.
If it was a singular employment remit then there is grounds for an interest rate cut. Inflation is the dynamic the Fed is really afraid of.
Add to this that the Fed isn’t the only actor governing employment and Inflation. The US government also has an arguably larger role in determining their joint trajectory.
This “economists ” appears to be pushing propaganda rather than fact based professional opinion.
Read with caution.. and yes a recession is on the cards, but how deep depends on the government not just the Fed.
I was taught that 5% unemployment is healthy for an economy. 4.6% shouldn’t be so alarming in the big picture. I guess the real issue is what is the quality of employment people are finding and how many people aren’t being counted in that 4.6%. At some point you just fall off from being counted?