• GreatSquare@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    None of those implications are bad UNLESS you are a manufacturer of those goods in the West. Or investing in those manufacturers. This is where WSJ falls flat on its ass.

    The rest of the economy is a consumer of those cheaper goods. So the discounts on those goods makes the wallet go further. That’s good for consumption. Consumers might even throw more money towards those dogshit services that economists are now in love with.

    • OrnluWolfjarl@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      The way the western economy is tied together through stock markets though means that one company or hedge fund failing because one manufacturer goes down, will cause a domino effect (either due to panic or interconnected stocks). That’s the fear anyway. We’ve seen exactly that when Intel’s stock went down, which was only mitigated by the Fed printing money and silently propping up the stock market.

      • GreatSquare@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        I agree the stock market is a big influence of the economy. Stocks are massively overvalued. There’s not enough available cash in existence if there’s big sell off on a major stock like Intel. Hence the need to print money. If the Fed didn’t intervene, that illusion of stocks actually having cash value would vaporise.