radon1 wrote:The financial system is the world economy. Meaningless heading.
Newfie wrote:I like the world global economy. All our eggs in on basket. If Trump succeds in destroying international faith in the system it will collapse destroying trade causing a massive reduction in manufacturing and thus green house gasses thus saving the World.
evilgenius wrote:I don't think the world economy is as self-correcting as one might wish.
...
The added danger here is that Trump may eventually be seeking the downsizing of the US Government. Partly he may be able to accomplish this by short circuiting the venerable status of both government and its institutions by putting freaks and irrational partisans in charge of sensitive positions. Partly by slowing down trade and destroying connections which took decades to build. Mostly by simply insisting on a world view that few but crackpots and charlatans accepted only a few years ago, but which everyone now has to figure out for themselves - so that it makes some sense at least. Points will be pulled from this as people seek to understand it which may compel us down this path, as we try to function according to some sort of logic.
Outcast_Searcher wrote:evilgenius wrote:I don't think the world economy is as self-correcting as one might wish.
...
The added danger here is that Trump may eventually be seeking the downsizing of the US Government. Partly he may be able to accomplish this by short circuiting the venerable status of both government and its institutions by putting freaks and irrational partisans in charge of sensitive positions. Partly by slowing down trade and destroying connections which took decades to build. Mostly by simply insisting on a world view that few but crackpots and charlatans accepted only a few years ago, but which everyone now has to figure out for themselves - so that it makes some sense at least. Points will be pulled from this as people seek to understand it which may compel us down this path, as we try to function according to some sort of logic.
Worst case, if he screws it up really bad, the voters throw him out in four years, and the next person, with a mandate from the voters, works to restore much of what was lost. (If he lasts two terms, then how bad could he really be (at least the first term) if the people who elected him last time, largely on economic issues, elect him again, IMO?
For good or bad, most rational people want economic "success" in the short to intermediate term, because they see it as in their self interest. Thus, while all the mess might not be moving toward being cleared up quickly (example: trade issues from Brexit), with long term trade partners, once a return to a leader with economic stability in mind is demonstrated, pure self-interest from trading partners will help clear up the issues.
No, the system certainly isn't always self correcting, and is most likely never completely self correcting. However, given the rather remarkable overall level of long term relative prosperity from major trading relationships, clearly (IMO) there is a significant amount of self-correction inherent in the system.
And this is a very good thing, else we would see much more economic chaos over time, even in "prosperous" economies.
...
Note: I'm NOT supporting Trump here, merely opining that I think the system is much stronger over time than the constant panicky calls of relative doom from one side for political points make it out to be -- and that principle applies regardless of who happens to be POTUS and/or the Beltway majority at the time.
evilgenius wrote:Sorry, in that other post above I should have said then instead of now. Saying now implies some sort of connection to the present day. I didn't mean to imply that. I only meant that the forces at work during the Depression that caused the world to slip back from recovery seem similar to what is going on under Trump with the trade war stuff.
The final stages of capitalism, Marx wrote, would be marked by developments that are intimately familiar to most of us. Unable to expand and generate profits at past levels, the capitalist system would begin to consume the structures that sustained it. It would prey upon, in the name of austerity, the working class and the poor, driving them ever deeper into debt and poverty and diminishing the capacity of the state to serve the needs of ordinary citizens. It would, as it has, increasingly relocate jobs, including both manufacturing and professional positions, to countries with cheap pools of laborers. Industries would mechanize their workplaces. This would trigger an economic assault on not only the working class but the middle class—the bulwark of a capitalist system—that would be disguised by the imposition of massive personal debt as incomes declined or remained stagnant. Politics would in the late stages of capitalism become subordinate to economics, leading to political parties hollowed out of any real political content and abjectly subservient to the dictates and money of global capitalism.
Pops wrote:This is good,The final stages of capitalism, Marx wrote, would be marked by developments that are intimately familiar to most of us. Unable to expand and generate profits at past levels, the capitalist system would begin to consume the structures that sustained it. It would prey upon, in the name of austerity, the working class and the poor, driving them ever deeper into debt and poverty and diminishing the capacity of the state to serve the needs of ordinary citizens. It would, as it has, increasingly relocate jobs, including both manufacturing and professional positions, to countries with cheap pools of laborers. Industries would mechanize their workplaces. This would trigger an economic assault on not only the working class but the middle class—the bulwark of a capitalist system—that would be disguised by the imposition of massive personal debt as incomes declined or remained stagnant. Politics would in the late stages of capitalism become subordinate to economics, leading to political parties hollowed out of any real political content and abjectly subservient to the dictates and money of global capitalism.
True, but that may have something to do with this
I really have no clue as to what is happening or why - seriously.
After the recession, nearly 4 million single-family homes, many purchased in foreclosure auctions, became rentals. (That’s about three percent of the total U.S. housing stock.) Big-time landlords who own dozens or even hundreds of properties are a rising force in U.S. cities, and their purchases have taken a big chunk of homes off of the market. There are fewer single-family homes for sale than at any time since 1982. Adjusted for the nation’s population gains in that time, the shortage is even more severe.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests