So you completely disagree with the "two economies" premise?

Post #332,260 by drook 9/4/10 8:22:46 PM Reply	So you completely disagree with the "two economies" premise? Divide the population somewhere between the 95th and 99th percentile. I guarantee that any mainstream financial coverage that talks about "good for the economy" or "bad for the economy" or "recovery" or any or a dozen other qualitative descriptions will be accurate for the top group. Hell, they even talk about a "jobless recovery". If there's no jobs, that's not a recovery most people care about. That's what I mean by two economies. (Edwards' "Two Americas" was mostly right, but too broad. It's the economy, stupid. :-/ ) THAT is why it is important 1) to weaken the dollar to help exports 2) to worry about excess capacity and address ways to utilize it effectively and 3) to ensure that recovery money from the government is focussed on infrastructure almost exclusively. I totally agree on your first point. But it would hurt the owners' economy. That's why the visible lobbying is all opposed to it. Your other two points depend on defining "the economy" as a single thing, ignoring the two economies premise. If you keep ignoring that, then yes, we're going to keep talking past each other. Oh, and consumers have become net savers. You forgot a word: again. Historically consumers have always been net savers. It's an anomaly of the housing bubble-driven credit boom that they weren't. And speaking of that ... "consumers, who have become net savers ... made corporations become net savers as well." Why is it when you're talking about saving, consumers and corporations are two different groups. But when you talk about recovery there's only one economy, and one definition of what "recovery" means? -- Drew
Post #332,265 by beepster 9/5/10 12:15:57 AM Reply	Absolutely positively and without a doubt. There are not 2 economies. I don't care what the press says. If they say that, they're wrong too. Whenever someone bows to one group or another...THE economy suffers. And more than 30 years ago people were savers. That isn't what the driver is any longer. 30 years and more ago when consumers were savers there was a solid underlying manufacturing base that we've since pissed away. Oh, certainly, there are those that will tell you we still have a solid manufacturing base..to which I will say I want what they're smoking. And to the last question..did I not just explain to you that there are multiple components to demand? Did I break them into 2 economies? No. Why do you insist on this? Its all the same system. Its all THE economy. There isn't more than one. Its all the same system. It either works or it doesn't. It is singular. If it doesn't work for the owners, it doesn't work for the workers. And I'm not sure who came up with the term "jobless recovery"...but I'm sure they had a lobotomy before they did. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #332,267 by drook 9/5/10 8:45:07 AM Reply	You're half right If it doesn't work for the owners, it doesn't work for the workers. But it is possible for it to work for the owners even when it's not working for the workers. -- Drew
Post #332,269 by beepster 9/5/10 12:22:08 PM Reply	No, its not. short run it could be either way. Could be good for workers, bad for owners and vice versa. Long run it has to be good for both or it won't work. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #332,270 by drook 9/5/10 12:30:17 PM Reply	You're kidding, right? Show me any evidence that long-run thinking was responsible for the real-estate bubble, the credit boom that it spawned, or the "creative" instruments (properly called "fraud") that capitalized on it, and I'll think you've got a point. Owners can make short-term bets with enough upside to keep them in style for generations, and any downside covered by government guarantees. There's nothing available to workers that compares. You can say that downside shouldn't be covered by the government, and that owners should be exposed to personal risk if they do a bad job, and I'll agree with you all day. But that isn't the current system. -- Drew
Post #332,273 by boxley 9/5/10 6:26:44 PM Reply	welfare food stamps unemployment compensation social security, medicare, supplemental social security, workmans comp naw the workers dont get a fucking thing. what caused the tech bubble. yuppies pouring dollars into their 401k by the armload created a easing of credit so firms that didnt have an idea could sell to idiot money brokers and a company that had no way of seeing a profit was worth bajillions. that bubble burst so the same dribbling yuppies loaded their money into realestate because unlike stocks realestate doesnt go down. Why wait till Im old to enjoy retirement, I will borrow on my equity. Now they are underwater and unemployed so that monthly jam of 401k money into the market isnt as bountiful as before so next bubble will be delayed until after citybank and boa are dismantled. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #332,349 by Another Scott 9/8/10 1:37:22 AM Reply	Eh? Drook is talking about the rich gaming the system to increase their wealth. SS, FS, etc., aren't wealth. Gates and Buffett and Helmsely wouldn't have their billions without the system that permits them to accumulate those vast holdings. Whatchotalkinabout? Cheers, Scott.

Welcome to IWETHEY!