http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/17/sunday-review/17economic.html This is an interesting piece about how what was normal will not be our (US's) new normal. I wonder what the long term effects will be.
This is exactly right. This problem was something that was building for years if not decades. It's not going to fix itself in a few years. The only goal of the Fed and the government is to prevent it from getting worse - but it's going to take a long time before it really gets better.
Having the Federal Government invest seed money into cutting edge innovations now and subsidizing job growth in the resulting new industries .... makes too much sense. You would have to raise top level income taxes to pay for it, but maybe you could sell it to Big Money as a chance for them to invest in growth stocks since there aren't many ways to grow money otherwise.
It seemed to working in late 90s. How about taxing the rich. Where are they going to go live Afghanistan?
Mehh. Rich people will find ways around it, and the money for going around it won't stay in the US economy. Maybe the strategy is just now one that can last very long.
Maybe we should maybe start looking into the possibility that capitalism is not a long term sustainable system? Markets cannot grow naturally forever, can they? . . . . so what happens is artificial and sometimes illusionary market growth which is based on . . . .shadows and dust. Even embracing globalism/finding new markets . . .it is more of delaying of the inevitable Like Oil . . .Markets maybe a finite resource . . then what? Rocket River
Absent other variables, an economy should grow as long as the population continues to grow. More people means you need more goods and services. As long as oil continues to flow freely then we shouldn't have to worry about running out of resources. There are still huge deposits of untouched natural resources under the sea and once those run out, we will then hopefully have the technology to mine asteroids in outer space. Its all reliant on cheap and abundant transportation fuel, we'll be all good as long as we have that.
I love this reasoning. We shouldn't raise taxes on the rich because they will find a way not to pay taxes is an absurd view of the world. First, it implies you're OK raising taxes on people who are not rich because they won't find a way around it and that implies an inequality in the laws and how our government treats all citizens. Second, and more importantly, if we extended this principle to all of society there wouldn't be much society left. No need for any laws because the people intent on breaking them will do so regardless. Marriage vows are stupid because the people that want to cheat are going to find a way to cheat. Third, I'm tired of rich people threatening the country with a hissy fit if they don't get everything they want. We can't be held hostage just because some rich mfers threaten to move some money to another country. Some may do that. So what? Screw them. if that's how they behave, it's clear to me they are no better than the Tories during the Revolution.
There may be a need for more goods and services but that doesn't mean the goods and services will actually be available or affordable.
Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes! The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!
Flattening of worker wages over the past couple decades might figure into lessened consumer spending.
You seem angry. I'm merely pointing out that it won't solve this particular problem. If raising taxes came with supplementary rules to fight tax evasion or avoidance, I agree that it would be a good idea. At the moment, "taxing the rich" seems to be a cosmetic change, and one that worsens the problem because people will be under the impression that it is materially solving the problem.
It all has to do with confidence. When the country is running trillion dollar deficits, and all the government does is play partisan politics, businesses and consumers aren't going to be very confident. I'm pretty moderate and I feel that the Republican party has sacrificed the country to win elections.
Economic growth is basically bound (per capita) by technology. I don't think there are any limits in that regard. Some of the stuff in that article is actually "good". I like it that I don't have to upgrade my car, tv, and appliances ever other year.
exactly, i don't know what the numbers are but i think wages increased well enough in the nineties to keep up with spending. its the first ten years of the new millineum where we see soaring debt. this isn't a political statement. the economy saw real growth during the nineties. however, we tried to continue that growth relying on housing and that was just the wrong way to go. we should have let the economy cool. its the natural business cycle and we were following an unatural grwoth period that could not be sustained.
