not disagreeing with you, but just looking at it another way could give a fresh look and change the dialog my definition is 50% are poor 50% are rich when viewed that way it stirs up a lot of animosity, but also almost eliminates any and all class warfare. It also makes it very difficult for politicians to buy votes just something to think about, that's why I am not afraid to use the words rich or poor, because to me they have very exact statistical meaning
Yes and no. In the modern west, it's probably ok to think of it that way, because we have so little poverty in the absolute sense of the word. But you go to (e.g.) Nigeria, and you'll find both absolute and relative poverty.
Constant inflation is what will continue to 'kill'. Where in nature, other than the expansion of the universe itself (yet we don't know how this will end either), can you have constant inflation? Everyone is scared of deflation; I argue we need periods of deflation to keep things in balance. Screw the Banks, they shouldn't have levered themselves to the freaking moon. Will it hurt to have some banks fail? Sure, but others will quickly fill the void (Hell, I would lend money if the markets determined return). I make good money, yet as a trader, my income has not really increased much over time. 10 years ago I was 'happy' with my income. Today, I would have to earn WAY more to 'feel' the same. I think nonstop inflation is going to kill everything, it is impossible for earnings to ALWAYS keep up. I find it funny that a traders, represented on this forum, are not scared of CONSTANT inflation. In trading it is very hard to increase income without increasing risk. Inflation alone will kill off a lot of traders; maybe me...
That's probably true. Politicians seem to be perpetuating the myth of inflating away debt though. If that's what we doing, why did the Debt to GDP ratio grow from 150 to 300+% in 30 years? Looks like Debt is just becoming bigger and bigger a problem. How far can it grow? 5 to 1? 10 to 1? It will collapse.
From the once multi-millionaire who lost it all on the building I used to own for my condo: "Poor is a state of mind. Broke is a state of account."
Again, a potential solution WAS to allow "prices" to adjust to the economic realities of the post credit bubble implosion. Instead of guaranteeing tons of bad debts and interfering with the supply/demand for loans, etc...prices could have/would have adjusted to what was actually AFFORDABLE. I don't think many people have actually contemplated the realities of price adjustments in an economy that has been perpetually propped up by some many implied and explicit government guarantees. Where do you think college tuition prices would be right now if not for the perpetual underwriting of all types of semi to non-qualified students? How many of these colleges do you think might be on the verge of "bankruptcy" that subsist on $50,000+ per annum tuitions and continue to raise prices at better than 5-7% per year? How about private schools? How about insurance...housing...etc, etc, etc... The fact that the global wage arbitrage game is firmly entrenched makes it all the more worthwhile to adjust the COST of living downwards and that would actually EASE the government burden of supporting the hordes of people who continue to find themselves on the backs of all these transfer payments just to get by. It would also create numerous opportunities for people to start businesses that might be considered "nickle and dime" enterprises, but if the actual cost of getting by were 30-50% less, then it would no longer be a futile exercise. The decision to simply inflate away the bad debts and devalue the purchasing power of the currency WHILE there is a reduced end user demand (i.e. not a consumer driven inflation) continues to worsen the situation as I mentioned earlier in this thread. Of course, all of this falls under the auspices of the dreaded "d" word (deflation), which seems to scare the living hell out of 90% of the people on this message board. On the other hand, runaway inflation in an economy that continues to see softening wages and high structural unemployment doesn't exactly solve anything at all.
It wasn't THAT long ago, the many semi well to do traders generated sometimes 5-7% in interest income and could simply trade with a bit of a "cushion". Of course, the same held true for others who were retired/semi-retired and could count on "something" without having to go into the traditionally held "risk assets" to try and eke out some gains year to year. The fact that ZIRP has been in place for three years and will be for another 2 (hell, who knows how many years it will be in place). This adds to the difficulty for many traders, investors, etc... At some point, the discussion will focus on ZIRP and what it has done to create alot of this financial madness. Right now, it seems that we are back into another bout of euphoria brought about by promises of perpetual easing and central bank liquidity.
Many reasons of economics, however, go to the very top of the hierarchy and the source is simple and why it perpetuates: Poor hot chicks are easier to pick up.
Actually public companies have no such fiduciary responsibility ... they need not aim for the maxim possible financial return. If management views its mandate in a broader way than they can pursue their corporate objectives while donating to charity, offering a more comprehensive health plan and even higher wages than their competitors. Obviously there are competitive pressures and if they take it too far they will cut into their profit enough to raise their cost of capital and eventually cease to be a top tier player in their niche. On the other hand there are a few companies who have used the generous approach, particularly as to benefits, to recruit better employees and hone that into an edge. So what it boils down to is that it is the unrelenting law of competition is what they must not break for no prosecutor will harass them for changing their behavior but their competitors may savage them.