The Bank of Canada’s governing council worried that the decision to hold rates steady on Sept. 6 could be 'misinterpreted' as a sign that the rate tightening cycle was finished.
The Bank of Canada’s governing council worried that the decision to hold rates steady on Sept. 6 could be ‘misinterpreted’ as a sign that the rate tightening cycle was finished.
It can be the lesser of evils, and still be based in needlessly gatekept prognostication. It can be bullshit, but still préférable to some other bullshit over there. I made no comparative judgement.
Are you an economics student? You seem to have taken this really personally.
If you think my opinion that economics should be made accessible and that we’re so far failing at that is “pointlessly cynical” then I have some other boots for you to lick after you’re done with the banker train.
Not sure why you think I’m taking this personally. I was simply pointing out that there are worse ways to do it, since I took your comment to mean that you disagreed with their approach.
I don’t disagree with their approach to inflation. Frankly I’m unequipped to comment, so I didn’t. You assumed that, which is why you seemed to have taken it personally.
I think it’s natural that people misread their actions given that finance is basically voodoo to most non-economists. This plays a part in keeping people poor, especially across generations. I am, apparently controversially, not a fan of this fact.
Have you ever actually read the CRA’s literature explaining various parts of the tax code, for example? Opaque af. It’s not in the least surprising that people misunderstand the application of various economic levers when applied by fancy men in tall buildings.
Any attempt by experts to explain this shit can be juxtaposed with a similar attempt by another expert who says the complete opposite. Conclusions can generally be boiled down to “a will lead to b unless c, d, e, f, g…y, or z.” Hence: nonsense.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
Go for it.
I didn’t say they’re doing it wrong, not sure what your point is?
You called it bullshit. That usually means you don’t agree. I guess I’m not sure what your point was.
Bullshit != most bullshit.
It can be the lesser of evils, and still be based in needlessly gatekept prognostication. It can be bullshit, but still préférable to some other bullshit over there. I made no comparative judgement.
Are you an economics student? You seem to have taken this really personally.
You posted a pointlessly cynical take, and are now upset that someone pointed that out?
Y’all weird. No one is upset here. Calm down.
If you think my opinion that economics should be made accessible and that we’re so far failing at that is “pointlessly cynical” then I have some other boots for you to lick after you’re done with the banker train.
He just repeated what the BoC said using funnier words.
Pointless? Maybe, but I enjoyed the laugh. The universe doesn’t revolve around you.
Cynical? In what way?
Not sure why you think I’m taking this personally. I was simply pointing out that there are worse ways to do it, since I took your comment to mean that you disagreed with their approach.
I don’t disagree with their approach to inflation. Frankly I’m unequipped to comment, so I didn’t. You assumed that, which is why you seemed to have taken it personally.
I think it’s natural that people misread their actions given that finance is basically voodoo to most non-economists. This plays a part in keeping people poor, especially across generations. I am, apparently controversially, not a fan of this fact.
Have you ever actually read the CRA’s literature explaining various parts of the tax code, for example? Opaque af. It’s not in the least surprising that people misunderstand the application of various economic levers when applied by fancy men in tall buildings.
Any attempt by experts to explain this shit can be juxtaposed with a similar attempt by another expert who says the complete opposite. Conclusions can generally be boiled down to “a will lead to b unless c, d, e, f, g…y, or z.” Hence: nonsense.