Here is what I think. I think we live in a world economy now. You can't simply just look at the US economy. I think from the perspective of a world economy, it is by far the best it's ever been. More and more countries are raising their standard of living. Prosperity is slowly spreading throughout the world (at the expense of the US). Job growth is strong worldwide. And more importantly, productivity is on fire. What a lot of people are having a hard time wrapping their hands around is the fact that the days were the US produced, manufactured, marketed, sold and consumed everything in the world is over. The days when we enjoyed all the wealth while everyone else suffered in poverty is over. Wealth is finally seeping out of the US and spreading out. This is a good thing in my opinion. I'll never understand the greediness of some in this country that believe that the US should prosper at the expense of the rest of the planet. The problem is, this transition is very hard for those that are most affected. It would appear to them that the economy sucks and no one is making money. But this simply is not true. People are making money, just now it's not all heavily concentrated in the US. What's wrong with China having prosperity? What's wrong with India having prosperity? Americans are so myopic and only care about themselves. Joe Lunch bucket had it easy man for a long time. He could live on a high school education, join a union and make 60k a year with full benefits and a pension while foreigners in poor countries were eating grass for dinner. Yippee!!!!!! Now Joe Lunchbucket is pissed of that the family eating grass for dinner can suddenly have bread and water and maybe some beans and Joe is bitching that he can't afford season tickets to see the Cubs anymore. I mean seriously guys, wake up. The days where someone could make 75k a year for having a pulse are over. We are now in a very competitive world economy. If you want to make 75k a year, you are going to have to fight for it. Is that a bad thing? I don't think so.
If wealth is really sweeping the world via globalization why does the world appear as unstable as ever?
I agree with most all of that Maverick, but I still don't see how it all works over the next 10-25 years. It seems to be a case of where the cure will kill the patient before he has a chance to recover.
I retract my question. I think there is only a certain amount of wealth the world can generate and when the wealth changes hands its probably breads instability. The Middle east hasnt had any economic progress in 400 years. I guess thats why they are pissed
Because once capital starts flowing into new places, there is a very concerted effort to get it. Both by tyrannical governments (Africa, Middle East, South America, China) and by people who are looking for upward mobility. You have to understand, most of the freestanding world lives in a more socialistic model then what we have here in the US. Once you start injecting these countries with cash, there is a fight between the state governments and private businesses to get it. Let's use this analogy. Say I were to stop by the projects tonight after work here in Chicago. And let's say I were to drive up and down the streets and start throwing money out my window, $100 bills OK. What would happen. I'll tell you what would happen, it would be every man, woman and child for themselves fighting for that money. People would be stepping over each other, shooting each other, stabbing, fighting, you name it. Why? Because they were not ready for it. I'm just throwing money out the window at will for whoever wants it. No authority to really regulate it. So you have the same thing happening in these countries. Money is flowing in at will and these people are not really ready for it. It's creating instability between the governments and the people. This will calm down and it too will pass. Most of these state controlled countries are not really thrilled with the surplus of capital coming in because most of these governments maintain control over their people by keeping them poor. The bottom line is, look around you. No, not in your neighborhood, but look around the world. Outside of the political issues effecting many people, capital is spreading, opportunity is spreading, the world is changing. Change is always volatile. Change is good. The world will be a better place for it.
You are correct that about 30% is independent. So let's says it's 35% Rep, 35% Dem, and 30% ind. But only 50% of registered voters vote (often less in mid-term elections). Party members are more likely to vote. So at the end of it all, independents make up less than 20% of the voters. Of course that 20% can swing the election, but it's more likely that party turnout determines who will win (as it did in 2004, when independents were against Bush but the GOP turned out in record numbers). All that said, I don't know who will win the House or Senate, but I do know it will most likely be determined by party turnout and not how independents vote.
Large government backed expansion that put the majority of the population to work should help build wealth and the democratic institutions that go along with it. Worked for us and built a middle class
Am I missing something, are you saying that a revision from 1K to 5K is more significant, or did you make a mistake?