Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
While The Dow has mathematical limitations that make it not particularly useful for much of anything, broadly speaking equities are an excellent indicator of the health of the economy and hence the standard of living of all, including those who lack the educational foundation to understand why.
Curious why you believe that.
The recent gyrations from the beginning of the pandemic til now have little to do with economic health. Rather they are the result of massive $$$ printing followed by inevitable drop when that money printing was curtailed.
Also, the policies since ~1980 (off-shoring labor, "free" trade, easy credit, decline of labor unions, low income taxes on the wealthy) have been responsible for real median wages being nearly flat since then, while upper echelon incomes... and corporation profits and stock values... have skyrocketed.
The wealthy spend a lot less of their income than regular folks, so they look for places to "invest" the excess. The problem is that the buying power of the consumers has been relatively depressed, which naturally depresses the economy (buying and selling). The "investment" then simply inflates the price of assets, chiefly stocks and RE.
Our economy was the best for everyone from the early 30s to late 70s. Real median incomes nearly tripled in that time! It's easy to see why, looking at how much policies have changed now vs then... since ~1980 there was a rapid, comprehensive, and synergistic campaign to let the rich get massively richer. Not by accident.
The recent gyrations from the beginning of the pandemic til now have little to do with economic health. Rather they are the result of massive $$$ printing followed by inevitable drop when that money printing was curtailed.
Also, the policies since ~1980 (off-shoring labor, "free" trade, easy credit, decline of labor unions, low income taxes on the wealthy) have been responsible for real median wages being nearly flat since then, while upper echelon incomes... and corporation profits and stock values... have skyrocketed.
The wealthy spend a lot less of their income than regular folks, so they look for places to "invest" the excess. The problem is that the buying power of the consumers has been relatively depressed, which naturally depresses the economy (buying and selling). The "investment" then simply inflates the price of assets, chiefly stocks and RE.
Our economy was the best for everyone from the early 30s to late 70s. Real median incomes nearly tripled in that time! It's easy to see why, looking at how much policies have changed now vs then... since ~1980 there was a rapid, comprehensive, and synergistic campaign to let the rich get massively richer. Not by accident.
It's tough to send gold specie coin through the internet. Hard to wire. Hard to make change.....Hard currency is...well, hard.
That has nothing to do with "fiat currency" - you can have a currency backed by gold or other metal and still send it electronically. Controlling the money supply and how it is backed is key, not the form of the money. The "full faith" or "fiat" backed has added benefits, but nothing to do with being digital or not.
I wouldn't go so far as to call it socialist. Socialism is a well-understood and coherent method of economic organization. It isn't the most efficient, but it is well understood and coherent.
The article is not socialist. The article is incoherent Social Justice (not Socialist) drivel that is internally inconsistent.
Semantics, they are calling for socialist goals - they may not be using standard methods but it is clear that they have socialist view points.
Your last thesis point is so absurd I sincerely hope you are joking. For a single data point the late '50 sported a poverty rate of nearly 25%.
I don't see how your reply relates to anything I wrote. You link to a graph showing that median household income has risen 25% since the early 80s... but I said wages were nearly flat. Workers per household rose when women entered the workforce en-mass. Also, over the same period GDP/capita increased over 100%... why has the median fallen so far behind?
I also said nothing about the poverty rate, but since you brought it up it was 22% in 1959... but 10 years later had dropped to only 12% (due to the "war on poverty" ie welfare) and has oscillated in the 11-15% range since.
I don't see how your reply relates to anything I wrote. You link to a graph showing that median household income has risen 25% since the early 80s... but I said wages were nearly flat. Workers per household rose when women entered the workforce en-mass. Also, over the same period GDP/capita increased over 100%... why has the median fallen so far behind?
I also said nothing about the poverty rate, but since you brought it up it was 22% in 1959... but 10 years later had dropped to only 12% (due to the "war on poverty" ie welfare) and has oscillated in the 11-15% range since.
Thank you very much for your post. Hope it will be useful to others too.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
