|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 19 2014 13:46 IgnE wrote:
I meant that demand has hit its ceiling, not that that ceiling is high. I don't really know how you misread it given the rest of the context around it.
As far as technological innovation goes, people just aren't needed to make things anymore. You can argue that people are being "retrained" to do service industry jobs, but that's not really the same thing. Capitalism doesn't work in a society where the service industry workers rely on demand from other service industry workers so that they, themselves, can pay for services from those same workers.
And I'm trying to tell you that demand is low in regards to it's potential, as in it's nowhere near any concept of a "ceiling."
Also, you seem to have some tremendous misunderstanding of what an economy is. As long as work is done in exchange for other work (via wages or whatever), there is an economy. As long as the supply and demand of that work is reflected in a price mechanism, capitalism is working. It doesn't matter if that work "creates" a good or if that work provides a service.
|
On March 19 2014 11:26 IgnE wrote:This post about the book on China, extolling the virtues of modularity and multinational firms that focus on design, misses the point. China has become the manufacturing headquarters of the world and operates under a serious import deficit with little internal demand relative to its production capacity. What this means is that sustained world demand for Chinese goods is the only thing propping up China's growth rate. American corporate profitability is so high right now because of technological innovation that has drastically cut labor requirements and outsourcing to places like China where the production costs, which while still lower now, were dramatically lower a decade ago. The national review article sees it as a positive thing that US-based firms can still collect the bulk of value by agilely positioning themselves away from physical production and towards portfolios of intellectual property. The reality is that this is essentially a transfer of wealth from Chinese factories towards American corporations, driven by the debt-financed spending of American consumers. The bottom 99% of the American population which has seen stagnant wages for the last couple decades are responsible for sustaining the demand keeping the whole thing going. This is problematic on many levels. Most importantly perhaps, any financial shock in an increasingly vulnerable, increasingly connected global financial network that creates a drop in demand is going to set off a chain reaction, destroying the profitability of a rapidly expanding Chinese manufacturing sector and the profitability of American corporations which depend on being able to sell their foreign-made high-margin goods to the credit-class of America. But it also speaks to one of the inherent contradictions of capital. Capital depends on consumption of new goods in order to realize a rate of return. In order to turn labor power into increased capital, someone has to buy the new goods being produced. When you have an entire underclass (i.e. "the 99%") that hasn't seen any increases in wages to supply the demand for rising profits, you need credit to bridge the gap between today's value and tomorrow's expectation. If those wages never go up, eventually the mounting pile of debt becomes too unwieldy and collapses. Technological innovation and outsourcing, in combination with vastly increasing debt levels, these past couple decades have allowed American capital to retain a profitable return on investment by cutting manufacturing costs, because they can afford to extract more of the labor value from a Chinese laborer than they can from a God-fearing American. China's production costs are rising though, and it won't be easy to continue cutting production costs. On the other end, however, you are hitting the upper limits for consumer demand in the United States. Something is going to give eventually.
Don't forget that profits are also high because interest rates are low, and that bonds are part of the capital structure too
... and ~100% of the population has seen income growth,
... and that US manufacturing's decline is over-hyped - manufacturing hasn't declined, just the number of jobs.
One last thing - mounting debt is over-hyped as well. It was a problem in the last cycle, but a lot of the long term buildup in debt is related to interest rates falling. Debt service / financial obligation costs for households haven't seen the same increase as debt levels. Right now, debt costs are down to multi-decade lows... hardly a recipe for collapse!
It seems like you're taking reasons why we had a recession and assuming that the same situation still exists and extrapolating from there.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
part of the problem is that employment wont rise that much even if us demand somehow recovers due to changing production structure. yes china east coast wage rose no there are still vietnam west china etc to fill in blank so the new model still works.
debt is not a crisis lvl problem atm but without debt finsnced demand the economy is exposed for its longterm peoblem/weakness
|
On March 20 2014 00:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2014 11:26 IgnE wrote:This post about the book on China, extolling the virtues of modularity and multinational firms that focus on design, misses the point. China has become the manufacturing headquarters of the world and operates under a serious import deficit with little internal demand relative to its production capacity. What this means is that sustained world demand for Chinese goods is the only thing propping up China's growth rate. American corporate profitability is so high right now because of technological innovation that has drastically cut labor requirements and outsourcing to places like China where the production costs, which while still lower now, were dramatically lower a decade ago. The national review article sees it as a positive thing that US-based firms can still collect the bulk of value by agilely positioning themselves away from physical production and towards portfolios of intellectual property. The reality is that this is essentially a transfer of wealth from Chinese factories towards American corporations, driven by the debt-financed spending of American consumers. The bottom 99% of the American population which has seen stagnant wages for the last couple decades are responsible for sustaining the demand keeping the whole thing going. This is problematic on many levels. Most importantly perhaps, any financial shock in an increasingly vulnerable, increasingly connected global financial network that creates a drop in demand is going to set off a chain reaction, destroying the profitability of a rapidly expanding Chinese manufacturing sector and the profitability of American corporations which depend on being able to sell their foreign-made high-margin goods to the credit-class of America. But it also speaks to one of the inherent contradictions of capital. Capital depends on consumption of new goods in order to realize a rate of return. In order to turn labor power into increased capital, someone has to buy the new goods being produced. When you have an entire underclass (i.e. "the 99%") that hasn't seen any increases in wages to supply the demand for rising profits, you need credit to bridge the gap between today's value and tomorrow's expectation. If those wages never go up, eventually the mounting pile of debt becomes too unwieldy and collapses. Technological innovation and outsourcing, in combination with vastly increasing debt levels, these past couple decades have allowed American capital to retain a profitable return on investment by cutting manufacturing costs, because they can afford to extract more of the labor value from a Chinese laborer than they can from a God-fearing American. China's production costs are rising though, and it won't be easy to continue cutting production costs. On the other end, however, you are hitting the upper limits for consumer demand in the United States. Something is going to give eventually. Don't forget that profits are also high because interest rates are low, and that bonds are part of the capital structure too ... and ~100% of the population has seen income growth,... and that US manufacturing's decline is over-hyped - manufacturing hasn't declined, just the number of jobs. One last thing - mounting debt is over-hyped as well. It was a problem in the last cycle, but a lot of the long term buildup in debt is related to interest rates falling. Debt service / financial obligation costs for households haven't seen the same increase as debt levels. Right now, debt costs are down to multi-decade lows... hardly a recipe for collapse! It seems like you're taking reasons why we had a recession and assuming that the same situation still exists and extrapolating from there.
Depends on who you're talking about. IIRC, more than half of men have been seeing declining real wages since the 1970s. Seems the gender pay gap has been closing in part because of reduced men's wages as well as an increase in women's.
Overall though, yes, real wages have increased for everybody since 1990 or so. However, wages and compensation have seen a real decline every year since 2007.
|
On March 20 2014 00:26 oneofthem wrote:
part of the problem is that employment wont rise that much even if us demand somehow recovers due to changing production structure. yes china east coast wage rose no there are still vietnam west china etc to fill in blank so the new model still works.
debt is not a crisis lvl problem atm but without debt finsnced demand the economy is exposed for its longterm peoblem/weakness
There are some industries that are highly affected by wage prices, but that's only a few.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 20 2014 00:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2014 00:26 oneofthem wrote:
part of the problem is that employment wont rise that much even if us demand somehow recovers due to changing production structure. yes china east coast wage rose no there are still vietnam west china etc to fill in blank so the new model still works.
debt is not a crisis lvl problem atm but without debt finsnced demand the economy is exposed for its longterm peoblem/weakness There are some industries that are highly affected by wage prices, but that's only a few.
the globalized production chain would tend to put the wage sensitive labor intensive part in places of low wage. the management and creative parts in the us are not as directly scaling on number of workers but on their pay as u increase scale
|
On March 20 2014 00:26 oneofthem wrote:
part of the problem is that employment wont rise that much even if us demand somehow recovers due to changing production structure. yes china east coast wage rose no there are still vietnam west china etc to fill in blank so the new model still works.
debt is not a crisis lvl problem atm but without debt finsnced demand the economy is exposed for its longterm peoblem/weakness
Kind of. I used to think debt was a problem, but it only really becomes one if interest rates rise and/or expected wages fall and managing the debt becomes harder.
|
On March 20 2014 00:32 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2014 00:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 19 2014 11:26 IgnE wrote:This post about the book on China, extolling the virtues of modularity and multinational firms that focus on design, misses the point. China has become the manufacturing headquarters of the world and operates under a serious import deficit with little internal demand relative to its production capacity. What this means is that sustained world demand for Chinese goods is the only thing propping up China's growth rate. American corporate profitability is so high right now because of technological innovation that has drastically cut labor requirements and outsourcing to places like China where the production costs, which while still lower now, were dramatically lower a decade ago. The national review article sees it as a positive thing that US-based firms can still collect the bulk of value by agilely positioning themselves away from physical production and towards portfolios of intellectual property. The reality is that this is essentially a transfer of wealth from Chinese factories towards American corporations, driven by the debt-financed spending of American consumers. The bottom 99% of the American population which has seen stagnant wages for the last couple decades are responsible for sustaining the demand keeping the whole thing going. This is problematic on many levels. Most importantly perhaps, any financial shock in an increasingly vulnerable, increasingly connected global financial network that creates a drop in demand is going to set off a chain reaction, destroying the profitability of a rapidly expanding Chinese manufacturing sector and the profitability of American corporations which depend on being able to sell their foreign-made high-margin goods to the credit-class of America. But it also speaks to one of the inherent contradictions of capital. Capital depends on consumption of new goods in order to realize a rate of return. In order to turn labor power into increased capital, someone has to buy the new goods being produced. When you have an entire underclass (i.e. "the 99%") that hasn't seen any increases in wages to supply the demand for rising profits, you need credit to bridge the gap between today's value and tomorrow's expectation. If those wages never go up, eventually the mounting pile of debt becomes too unwieldy and collapses. Technological innovation and outsourcing, in combination with vastly increasing debt levels, these past couple decades have allowed American capital to retain a profitable return on investment by cutting manufacturing costs, because they can afford to extract more of the labor value from a Chinese laborer than they can from a God-fearing American. China's production costs are rising though, and it won't be easy to continue cutting production costs. On the other end, however, you are hitting the upper limits for consumer demand in the United States. Something is going to give eventually. Don't forget that profits are also high because interest rates are low, and that bonds are part of the capital structure too ... and ~100% of the population has seen income growth,... and that US manufacturing's decline is over-hyped - manufacturing hasn't declined, just the number of jobs. One last thing - mounting debt is over-hyped as well. It was a problem in the last cycle, but a lot of the long term buildup in debt is related to interest rates falling. Debt service / financial obligation costs for households haven't seen the same increase as debt levels. Right now, debt costs are down to multi-decade lows... hardly a recipe for collapse! It seems like you're taking reasons why we had a recession and assuming that the same situation still exists and extrapolating from there. Depends on who you're talking about. IIRC, more than half of men have been seeing declining real wages since the 1970s. Seems the gender pay gap has been closing in part because of reduced men's wages as well as an increase in women's. Overall though, yes, real wages have increased for everybody since 1990 or so. However, wages and compensation have seen a real decline every year since 2007.
I'm talking income, all of it. IgnE is talking about the economy collapsing because people can't buy stuff. It shouldn't matter if their ability to pay comes from wages or private / public benefits.
We can of course have a preference for what type of income people get. My point being that a hospital isn't going to close because too much of its money comes from insurance or a supermarket isn't going to close because too much income comes from EBT cards.
I'm not surprise to hear it's been different since '07 - the economy's been shit.
|
On March 20 2014 00:39 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2014 00:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 20 2014 00:26 oneofthem wrote:
part of the problem is that employment wont rise that much even if us demand somehow recovers due to changing production structure. yes china east coast wage rose no there are still vietnam west china etc to fill in blank so the new model still works.
debt is not a crisis lvl problem atm but without debt finsnced demand the economy is exposed for its longterm peoblem/weakness There are some industries that are highly affected by wage prices, but that's only a few. the globalized production chain would tend to put the wage sensitive labor intensive part in places of low wage. the management and creative parts in the us are not as directly scaling on number of workers but on their pay as u increase scale
Yeah, but wage sensitive labor isn't a big chunk of the economy. This also isn't new (wage sensitive jobs have been moving around the world since long before we were born), it just happens faster now.
|
On March 20 2014 00:51 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2014 00:26 oneofthem wrote:
part of the problem is that employment wont rise that much even if us demand somehow recovers due to changing production structure. yes china east coast wage rose no there are still vietnam west china etc to fill in blank so the new model still works.
debt is not a crisis lvl problem atm but without debt finsnced demand the economy is exposed for its longterm peoblem/weakness Kind of. I used to think debt was a problem, but it only really becomes one if interest rates rise and/or expected wages fall and managing the debt becomes harder.
Yup. If anything people aren't taking on enough debt. We need people in their 20's back to work and spurring some new home buying.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 20 2014 00:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2014 00:39 oneofthem wrote:On March 20 2014 00:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 20 2014 00:26 oneofthem wrote:
part of the problem is that employment wont rise that much even if us demand somehow recovers due to changing production structure. yes china east coast wage rose no there are still vietnam west china etc to fill in blank so the new model still works.
debt is not a crisis lvl problem atm but without debt finsnced demand the economy is exposed for its longterm peoblem/weakness There are some industries that are highly affected by wage prices, but that's only a few. the globalized production chain would tend to put the wage sensitive labor intensive part in places of low wage. the management and creative parts in the us are not as directly scaling on number of workers but on their pay as u increase scale Yeah, but wage sensitive labor isn't a big chunk of the economy. This also isn't new (wage sensitive jobs have been moving around the world since long before we were born), it just happens faster now.
well the main point was that the lean corporate structures do not need to expand that much to anticipate demand growth anyway. because they are more scalable to production lvl. rather u see wage up rather than employment up.
at least with the exception of unversity administrators
|
On March 20 2014 00:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2014 00:51 aksfjh wrote:On March 20 2014 00:26 oneofthem wrote:
part of the problem is that employment wont rise that much even if us demand somehow recovers due to changing production structure. yes china east coast wage rose no there are still vietnam west china etc to fill in blank so the new model still works.
debt is not a crisis lvl problem atm but without debt finsnced demand the economy is exposed for its longterm peoblem/weakness Kind of. I used to think debt was a problem, but it only really becomes one if interest rates rise and/or expected wages fall and managing the debt becomes harder. Yup. If anything people aren't taking on enough debt. We need people in their 20's back to work and spurring some new home buying.
I'm not quite sure about that. Part of the reason we have such low interest rates on debt right now has to do with the global savings rate. Top global earners and certain countries (like Germany and Japan) are saving a lot and, essentially, blindly seeking gains with a herd mentality. There's no global regulatory structure to protect against this, nor is there reliable communication between firms to provide international justification for their investments. My armchair analysis says that this seems to be the root of the global "debt" bubbles, and not central bank policies. Until this risk is properly regulated, I would like to see less exposure to the system rather than more.
|
On March 20 2014 01:29 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2014 00:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 20 2014 00:51 aksfjh wrote:On March 20 2014 00:26 oneofthem wrote:
part of the problem is that employment wont rise that much even if us demand somehow recovers due to changing production structure. yes china east coast wage rose no there are still vietnam west china etc to fill in blank so the new model still works.
debt is not a crisis lvl problem atm but without debt finsnced demand the economy is exposed for its longterm peoblem/weakness Kind of. I used to think debt was a problem, but it only really becomes one if interest rates rise and/or expected wages fall and managing the debt becomes harder. Yup. If anything people aren't taking on enough debt. We need people in their 20's back to work and spurring some new home buying. I'm not quite sure about that. Part of the reason we have such low interest rates on debt right now has to do with the global savings rate. Top global earners and certain countries (like Germany and Japan) are saving a lot and, essentially, blindly seeking gains with a herd mentality. There's no global regulatory structure to protect against this, nor is there reliable communication between firms to provide international justification for their investments. My armchair analysis says that this seems to be the root of the global "debt" bubbles, and not central bank policies. Until this risk is properly regulated, I would like to see less exposure to the system rather than more.
Oh, I totally agree with that 
I just think that 20-somethings unemployed and the still low rate of new home construction are two biggies that need to get fixed.
|
On March 20 2014 01:06 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2014 00:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 20 2014 00:39 oneofthem wrote:On March 20 2014 00:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 20 2014 00:26 oneofthem wrote:
part of the problem is that employment wont rise that much even if us demand somehow recovers due to changing production structure. yes china east coast wage rose no there are still vietnam west china etc to fill in blank so the new model still works.
debt is not a crisis lvl problem atm but without debt finsnced demand the economy is exposed for its longterm peoblem/weakness There are some industries that are highly affected by wage prices, but that's only a few. the globalized production chain would tend to put the wage sensitive labor intensive part in places of low wage. the management and creative parts in the us are not as directly scaling on number of workers but on their pay as u increase scale Yeah, but wage sensitive labor isn't a big chunk of the economy. This also isn't new (wage sensitive jobs have been moving around the world since long before we were born), it just happens faster now. well the main point was that the lean corporate structures do not need to expand that much to anticipate demand growth anyway. because they are more scalable to production lvl. rather u see wage up rather than employment up. at least with the exception of unversity administrators
I'm not sure about that. In some ways lean corporate structures leave little room for spare capacity.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
thats what the numbers show though. higher wage st the 100k+ level, productivity but low perm employment.
|
On March 20 2014 01:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2014 01:29 aksfjh wrote:On March 20 2014 00:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 20 2014 00:51 aksfjh wrote:On March 20 2014 00:26 oneofthem wrote:
part of the problem is that employment wont rise that much even if us demand somehow recovers due to changing production structure. yes china east coast wage rose no there are still vietnam west china etc to fill in blank so the new model still works.
debt is not a crisis lvl problem atm but without debt finsnced demand the economy is exposed for its longterm peoblem/weakness Kind of. I used to think debt was a problem, but it only really becomes one if interest rates rise and/or expected wages fall and managing the debt becomes harder. Yup. If anything people aren't taking on enough debt. We need people in their 20's back to work and spurring some new home buying. I'm not quite sure about that. Part of the reason we have such low interest rates on debt right now has to do with the global savings rate. Top global earners and certain countries (like Germany and Japan) are saving a lot and, essentially, blindly seeking gains with a herd mentality. There's no global regulatory structure to protect against this, nor is there reliable communication between firms to provide international justification for their investments. My armchair analysis says that this seems to be the root of the global "debt" bubbles, and not central bank policies. Until this risk is properly regulated, I would like to see less exposure to the system rather than more. Oh, I totally agree with that I just think that 20-somethings unemployed and the still low rate of new home construction are two biggies that need to get fixed.
Personally, I think the way to go about that is to reduce the incentives on capital investment locally. Re-distributive and inflationary fiscal policies mixed with inflationary monetary policy. Give more money to those that will spend it and punish excess saving (mainly through income tax and/or capital gains tax). In the US, this equates to giving money to those with lower incomes. Psychologically, it doesn't really matter how the money is given since many people would rather lower their tax rate by increasing wages to workers they deem worthy than having the government take their money and give it to those who are unworthy. "Useless" government job programs (although "useful" would be better), more generous food stamps, EITC, guaranteed living allowances for everybody, etc., it doesn't really matter.
In places like Europe and Japan, I'm starting to think a more punitive approach to savings is necessary to spark demand/inflation. Either that, or heavily taxing investments that leave the country. So the solution isn't as cut and dry there.
The key here is that we know how to deal with inflation through central banks in advanced economies (jack up interest rates).
|
On March 20 2014 01:29 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2014 00:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 20 2014 00:51 aksfjh wrote:On March 20 2014 00:26 oneofthem wrote:
part of the problem is that employment wont rise that much even if us demand somehow recovers due to changing production structure. yes china east coast wage rose no there are still vietnam west china etc to fill in blank so the new model still works.
debt is not a crisis lvl problem atm but without debt finsnced demand the economy is exposed for its longterm peoblem/weakness Kind of. I used to think debt was a problem, but it only really becomes one if interest rates rise and/or expected wages fall and managing the debt becomes harder. Yup. If anything people aren't taking on enough debt. We need people in their 20's back to work and spurring some new home buying. I'm not quite sure about that. Part of the reason we have such low interest rates on debt right now has to do with the global savings rate. Top global earners and certain countries (like Germany and Japan) are saving a lot and, essentially, blindly seeking gains with a herd mentality. There's no global regulatory structure to protect against this, nor is there reliable communication between firms to provide international justification for their investments. My armchair analysis says that this seems to be the root of the global "debt" bubbles, and not central bank policies. Until this risk is properly regulated, I would like to see less exposure to the system rather than more.
You guys verbalize my understanding much better than I could. I get very vitriolic responses accusing me of being a troll or uncaring human being. I certainly believe we should erect better dams to keep money that is "earmarked" for consumption in the real economy from flowing into the capital economy and vice versa.
|
On March 20 2014 02:20 oneofthem wrote:
thats what the numbers show though. higher wage st the 100k+ level, productivity but low perm employment.
... due to lean corporate structures??
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 20 2014 03:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2014 02:20 oneofthem wrote:
thats what the numbers show though. higher wage st the 100k+ level, productivity but low perm employment. ... due to lean corporate structures??
pursue of efficiency yea. replicable jobs are for interns or temps while experience is still highly valued. with corporate expansion i guess one has to specify what kind of expansion it is to say whether you need more people in the offices.
|
On March 20 2014 03:10 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2014 01:29 aksfjh wrote:On March 20 2014 00:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 20 2014 00:51 aksfjh wrote:On March 20 2014 00:26 oneofthem wrote:
part of the problem is that employment wont rise that much even if us demand somehow recovers due to changing production structure. yes china east coast wage rose no there are still vietnam west china etc to fill in blank so the new model still works.
debt is not a crisis lvl problem atm but without debt finsnced demand the economy is exposed for its longterm peoblem/weakness Kind of. I used to think debt was a problem, but it only really becomes one if interest rates rise and/or expected wages fall and managing the debt becomes harder. Yup. If anything people aren't taking on enough debt. We need people in their 20's back to work and spurring some new home buying. I'm not quite sure about that. Part of the reason we have such low interest rates on debt right now has to do with the global savings rate. Top global earners and certain countries (like Germany and Japan) are saving a lot and, essentially, blindly seeking gains with a herd mentality. There's no global regulatory structure to protect against this, nor is there reliable communication between firms to provide international justification for their investments. My armchair analysis says that this seems to be the root of the global "debt" bubbles, and not central bank policies. Until this risk is properly regulated, I would like to see less exposure to the system rather than more. You guys verbalize my understanding much better than I could. I get very vitriolic responses accusing me of being a troll or uncaring human being. I certainly believe we should erect better dams to keep money that is "earmarked" for consumption in the real economy from flowing into the capital economy and vice versa.
I think it's just that I have a problem with your version of things. I think savings and consumption are parts of the same pie, and that there aren't any directives for money to be used one way or another. Every person should have the same opportunity to participate in the economy as any other, whether that's via capital investments or via compensated labor.
As you have said before, you don't think Joe Anybody should be able to dabble in capital markets because he wouldn't have the proper skills to do so. This is where capitalism shines though, by allowing people to participate in these activities despite unconventional backgrounds if the incentives are high enough. It helps breed innovation. My interpretation of your conclusion is that you believe capital market failures are created by the unwashed masses trying their hand at it.
Instead, I propose that capital markets will fail regardless at times, simply due to the imperfect nature of human interaction. At different times, consumption markets will also fail for the same reasons. Increasing the isolation does nothing to stop these, but does decrease cross contamination, as well as market efficiency. It would be better if we recognized correctly which market was in poor shape and helped. For example, in the 1970s, it was capital markets in poor shape, partially due to accelerating inflation. The supply side shocks and reforms helped fix that issue. Now we're facing consumption shortfalls, but policy is not responding adequately to fix it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
