The Most Important Economic Trend

The most important economic trend to consider is that, in general, Americans have a very strong sense that their standard of living is on an increasingly downward slope. Sooner or later, people are going to zero-in on institutions such as the Federal Reserve Bank whose job it is to confiscate and redistribute wealth from private citizens to financial elites and the politically well-connected.

…whose job it is to confiscate and redistribute wealth from private citizens…

Just wait till all your money is digital and some despot comes along and freezes your account at whim dejuir. Overnight you are broke as a politico flips the switch.
(oh, canada)

5 Likes

Sooner or later, people are going to zero-in on institutions such as the Federal Reserve Bank whose job it is to confiscate and redistribute wealth from private citizens to financial elites and the politically well-connected.

==============================================

Another political post

9 Likes

Someone should be on Triple Dog Secret Probation.

This isn’t a partisan political post so I won’t FA it.

But it is worthless and content-free. If you make an assertion, post links and substantiate what you say. Don’t just pull your opinions out of your orifice.

Even if you’re right, it doesn’t help us invest.
Wendy

19 Likes

Political and stupid to the point of delusional.

1 Like

The most important economic trend to consider is that, in general, Americans have a very strong sense that their standard of living is on an increasingly downward slope. Sooner or later, people are going to zero-in on institutions such as the Federal Reserve Bank whose job it is to confiscate and redistribute wealth from private citizens to financial elites and the politically well-connected

He is not wrong just getting it wrong how it works.

We have power sharing in the US. Meaning many wealthy people want demand side econ because the US economy grows faster. Yes it is a redistribution just like the supply side econ was a redistribution of wealth. Surprise…yes supply side econ seems to be a redistribution of wealth after all.

He is not wrong but people up and down the income and wealth ladders want this…incrementally…and well reasoned.

OK, I’ll take a crack at this.

I don’t think the Federal Reserve is the primary problem. The general primary problem is that large corporations have excessive pricing, political and legal power. Through campaign contributions, they have been able to influence the establishment of laws which discourage competition in a number of ways, including increasing the barriers to entry. Especially in recent years, they have started to control supply in a fashion which gives them the ability to sell their goods and services for such high prices that many if not most citizens must go into debt to live comfortably and stay competitive in their communities.

It’s not the Fed. It’s that most if not all industries are oligopolies with nearly unlimited power, especially those with necessary products and services like housing, utilities, education, medicine and food. These companies can all prosper greatly without even trying to compete on price.

If you ask me, choosing corporate power over the development of its citizenry is a poor way to manage a nation.

One last thing. It seems to me many of the most powerful and financially successful generation (read: boomers) today benefited by government largesse (and perhaps a highly progressive tax system) in the 1950s and 1960s. Many of these people are calling for the dismantling of those subsidies which benefited them. That seems ungrateful and short-sighted to me. Talkin’ 'bout my generation. Why don’t you all f-f-f-fade away.

31 Likes

The most important economic trend to consider is that, in general, Americans have a very strong sense that their standard of living is on an increasingly downward slope.

Surprisingly (at least to you) that pessimism is more often true than not, and has been for centuries. The fact that it has not actually been true does not seem to matter.
http://www.sca.isr.umich.edu/files/chicsh.pdf

As the chart clearly shows, this sentiment rockets up and down, again and again, and appears to spend more time in negative territory than positive, in spite of the obvious fact that the standard of living (for most) has continued to improve across the past 75 years, the previous century, and since the founding of the Republic.

Sooner or later, people are going to zero-in on institutions such as the Federal Reserve Bank whose job it is to confiscate and redistribute wealth from private citizens to financial elites and the politically well-connected.

A prediction which is undeniably true, since no country or economic system (yet) has managed to exist forever. So at some point it will all come crashing down. Whether “the people” decide to blame the Fed, or “immigrants” (as has repeatedly been shown to be popular), or economic calamity, or war, or pestilence, or perhaps the return of disco remains to be seen.

But a more vapid (and pretentious) post hasn’t been offered here for some time, so thanks for the laugh.

19 Likes

If you ask me, choosing corporate power over the development of its citizenry is a poor way to manage a nation.

“Corporations are people” One of the most absurd things I’ve ever heard. Made up of people? Sure. Behave like people…NO.

2 Likes

A prediction which is undeniably true, since no country or economic system (yet) has managed to exist forever.

So it must last forever or until the end of time?

Desert (Whichever comes first?) Dave

1 Like

“Corporations are people” One of the most absurd things I’ve ever heard. Made up of people? Sure. Behave like people…NO.

Aye… “corporate personhood,” as the legal theory is known, is a wonderful fiction that makes tons of stuff easier, contracts and taxes being two easy to understand examples. But any time political lobbying comes up, and especially in the context of campaign donations, I can’t understand why the very obvious “Can I put a gun against a corporations skull and pull the trigger” argument isn’t made for why limits on their “rights” aren’t tightened down.

2 Likes

hey dave, a rec and a thank you for this weird to me thought:

forever or until the end of time?

Never puzzled that one before.

Althought it may be only a Wittgenstein fly trapped in bottle sort of puzzle, I enjoy pondering it. The concepts are actually rooted in systems of thinking that are so far apart…

I guess I will just have to stick around and see which one brings down the curtain!

david fb

“Corporations are people” One of the most absurd things I’ve ever heard.

You are in good company in disliking the assumptions of that SCOTUS decision.

St Paul:

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Yeap. I have some disagreements with Paul, but I am 100% on board with this statement.

david fb

1 Like

A prediction which is undeniably true, since no country or economic system (yet) has managed to exist forever.

Not forever, but capitalism is currently at 3-4 billion years on this planet. Cooperative capitalism at least 2 billion years.

I can’t understand why the very obvious “Can I put a gun against a corporations skull and pull the trigger” argument isn’t made for why limits on their “rights” aren’t tightened down.

Just spitballing here, but have you considered rephrasing this a bit? Something like, “Can I put a corporation in jail?” Might get a little better reception.

—Peter

3 Likes

I can’t understand why the very obvious “Can I put a gun against a corporations skull and pull the trigger” argument isn’t made for why limits on their “rights” aren’t tightened down.

iirc, the justification for the ruling was that a corporation is an assembly of people, so, in buying government favors, the CEO is speaking for all the people assembled in the corporation. Thing is, I never worked for a company that wanted any input from the rank and file. When a shareholder proposal to require the company disclose who it is buying, why, and what the price was, management always says that is none of the shareholder’s business. How can the CEO purport to be speaking for the assembly of people, when the CEO locks all the other stakeholders out of the decision making?

Steve