WatchThe reason that the stock market has rebounded since 2008 is not for any authentic reasoning. It is because the government is taking on massive amounts of debt effectively acting to expand the money supply all by themselves. This deficit is obviously not sustainable and as soon as the government has to live within their means or has to pay it back we will see the stock market restore to reality. Stocks will drop after the government deficit is zero because they are propping the economy up by currently spending the next 10-15 year’s dollars today. The Gov. is stealing gains from our future economic activity to attempt to keep our money supply and asset prices at an unsustainable level (not to help us…. but to ensure the cover up of the failing of the big banks).
I thought we lived in a capitalistic society where markets clear. But then I remember that Federal, State, and Local government make up about 42% of GDP. In the book "The Road to Serfdom" Hayek said that Germany was close to 54% before they teetered to oblivion in the 1920's. First we get a form of crony capitalism (much like we currently have). Next, the path follows as democratic socialism to socialism to communism to totalitarianism to fascism. Hayek does not say that the path to serfdom is not reversible. We just need to restore capitalism and get government out of the markets!
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/total_spending_2013USrn
Look where your money is being spent per state!
Follow
Befriend
34 threads
2,115 comments
The reason the stock market does what it does is because it has always done what it has done. It goes up, and it goes down. In the meantime people invest and over the long term its proven more or less to deliver reliable returns. People can either choose to decide that the market is always ready to crash or always going to go up up up. Neither are right. The answer is basically backed up by historical performance.
Follow
Befriend (8)
204 threads
4,416 comments
Davis, CA
Original poster has fallen into the Conspiracy Trap.
The reason the stock market tends to go up is because it MUST do so.
Majority of financial services jobs are predicated on the idea that this system can grow without bounds. Therefore they will do whatever it takes whether consciously or not, to ensure that happens. Maybe it's a little "loosening" of accounting standards here, maybe a little push to deregulate securitization there, or perhaps even fiddling with reserve requirements. It all adds up to inexorable pressure to make sure the stock indices ALWAYS move up in the long term.
No individual actor in this sees themselves as a member of a conspiracy to defraud. The consequences however of their FAILURE to act in the interest of their group, would be a public losing faith & interest in financial tiddlywinks and thus defunding their revenue stream.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
Profits don't have to grow in order for the market to go up. Why not? Share buybacks.
Follow
Befriend (2)
11 threads
218 comments
San Jose, CA
EconPete says
Where are you getting this number? I thought private sector is almost 80% of the GDP.
Source: http://www.investorsinsight.com/blogs/john_mauldins_outside_the_box/archive/2010/07/12/recession-deflation-and-deficits.aspx
Sorry, I don't have an up-to-date graph.
Follow
Befriend
42 threads
32 comments
"Where are you getting this number?"
Um wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending
"The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) reports that total federal, state and local spending in the United States was $6.134 trillion in 2010."
6.1 trillion/14.6 trillion = 42%
basic math
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/index.php
Follow
Befriend (1)
250 threads
4,751 comments
EconPete says
Where was I when that happened?
Follow
Befriend (7)
37 threads
1,539 comments
Mountain View, CA
bmwman91's website
Premium
Vicente says
This is the part that always blows my mind. How can anyone actually believe in unbounded growth? Nothing good ever comes from acting on that idea. I tend to think of it as being a "sawtooth" system...rising, rising, rising, rising, CRASH, rising, rising, rising, rising, CRASH, rising, rising, rising, rising, CRASH.....etc.
Follow
Befriend (8)
204 threads
4,416 comments
Davis, CA
bmwman91 says
Yes it does require some thinking.
"Growth" of what? Manufacturing to increase 5% per year until we are buried in "stuff"? Infotainment to increase 5% per year until we are all wired into Facebook 24x7 while living a reality show? Efficiency to increase 5% per year until in the end a few robots and maintenance workers produce everything while billions work cleaning each other's toilets and selling each other fast food?
Hmmmm......
Follow
Befriend (7)
37 threads
1,539 comments
Mountain View, CA
bmwman91's website
Premium
My thoughts exactly. I guess that smart people work on this premise to profit wildly in the near term, but have an escape plan for when it inevitably comes crashing down. One needs to be careful though, because people might notice that you were a major contributor to the collapse and hold you accountable!
Follow
Befriend (8)
204 threads
4,416 comments
Davis, CA
There was a good TED talk recently about we have reached "peak child". And that from here on out, the bulge will move through the snake and we will stabilize at 10 billions.
So I could see arguments about growth of this and that being needed for the extra 3 billion we'll eventually accomodate. However, we'll be flattening and stabilizing within my son's lifetime. Then what? A lot of basic assumptions will come crashing down.
Follow
Befriend (16)
766 threads
7,711 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Vicente says
Sounds like a Michael Jackson video.
Follow
Befriend (16)
766 threads
7,711 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
Vicente says
http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_religions_and_babies.html
Good video. Basically, high mortality = high population growth.
This is true because people have many children expecting most of them to die before reaching adulthood. This was true in America in the 18th and 19th centuries.
Hopefully, the conclusion is right that the population will trail off naturally without the need for war, disease, famine, or other ways nature limits population. [War being natural in the sense that different groups kill over competition for resources.]
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
It will be interesting, for sure.
From a "central planning" perspective, less humans is just fine...you just need less stuff produced since there are less people.
But yes, how would a capitalist system handle the situation??
If history is any guide, not well. Didn't the plagues in Medieval Europe wipe out the economy as the population tanked?
Follow
Befriend (7)
37 threads
1,539 comments
Mountain View, CA
bmwman91's website
Premium
wthrfrk80 says
I think that it is safe to assume that the economy was tanking because society was being ripped apart by disease, and people were either unable or unwilling to participate in it because of the epidemic. There were too many variables in that one to conclude that "decreasing population" caused the economy to fall apart. The thing that caused a decrease in population was probably also what was causing the broken economy!
Follow
Befriend
9 comments
Bellingham, WA
Cash is still king... real estate is not liquid .. Good luck
Follow
Befriend
3 threads
2,498 comments
bmwman91 says
I think you can safely assume that in places like southern france, spain, and italy that had 75-80% of the population disappear in 4 years that decreasing population caused the economy to fall apart. Especially since the plague followed 7 years of crop failures and famine that wiped out 10-20% of the population before the plague hit.
Follow
Befriend (7)
37 threads
1,539 comments
Mountain View, CA
bmwman91's website
Premium
bob2356 says
Sorry, I was being unclear. The population was decreasing rapidly for very specific reasons back then, that were totally beyond anyone's understanding or control. Even tougher, it was happening FAST! There's no comparison between an epidemic that wiped out 75%+ of the population over 4 years, and people deciding to have fewer kids. The economy fell apart during the plague because society itself was falling apart from mass deaths & a lack of a steady food supply. It may or may not fall apart as people have fewer kids, but the effects of that manifest over generations, giving everyone plenty of time to deal with it.
Follow
Befriend (8)
204 threads
4,416 comments
Davis, CA
wthrfrk80 says
The historians usually concluded that plagues led to the Renaissance. Various rationales through various lenses for this effect. One argument is that the suddenly shrunken agrarian and low-end labor pools could demand and receive better wages. Thus a suddenly richer (if smaller) labor class pumped economies by enforcing trickle-down. But how true is that conclusion? More research required.
Follow
Befriend (13)
52 threads
2,639 comments
Premium
wthrfrk80 says
Vicente says
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/middle_ages/blacksocial_01.shtml
There's a great account I read (not at above link) of the aftermath of the black death and how it played out at a British Monastery. The Abbot or Steward-Monk complaining about high labor costs, with peasants playing all the landlords against each other for better wages and becoming "uppity" in general, and how he had to finagle to find enough laborers to do various tasks.
Follow
Befriend (4)
52 threads
4,416 comments
Corning, NY
Premium
Well that's one solution to low wages...a massive die-off!
Hopefully it won't come to that...
Follow
Befriend (16)
766 threads
7,711 comments
Boca Raton, FL
Premium
thunderlips11 says
When the Black Death killed between a quarter and a third of the European population, the lack of peasants caused the slave wages to be replaced with real living wages. As a result, the lower 90% became prosperous and were able to start businesses of their own. They developed specialized trades.
This boom to the peasants is the most direct cause of the Resistance and Europe's climb out of the desolation of the Middle Ages. Rising wages for the masses is the best thing that ever happened in Western Civilization's history. Even the greedy ruling class benefited as the quality of life for even the rich in Middle Ages pales in comparison to the middle class today. But, of course, the ruling class does not have enough foresight to ever recognize this fact.