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.
Much of that productivity and GDP growth is fictitious meaning it has no effect on everyday flow of material goods and time, yet the people who are engaged in fictitious GDP activities want to consume non fictitious stuff. Same with inequality. As insanely parasitic the "system" allowing this sort of inequality to snowball, the wealth of the top parasites cannot be easily converted into more food, goods and free time for the proles because supply of those tangible things has imeditate material limitations not easily affected by inflow of fiat wealth. The top parasite in this system of ours is financial master class, they can create "wealth" out of thin air. As long as they keep much of that "wealth" locked in various financial instruments they can enjoy luxuriant lifestyle by extracting real labor and goods from the peons down under. But once all that "wealth" they own engages the real world it evaporates.
It is not the best. The best IMO is where the middle class benefits and grows into a better standard of living.
Not really.
Frankly Western standards of living are so high anyway nothing is measured in objective factors. It's all subjective. Is my house 2,300 square feet or 2,800 square feet. If it's 2,800 square feet I'm doing better. Am I driving a 2017 Ford Explorer or a 2017 Lincoln Navigator. If it's a 2017 Lincoln Navigator I'm doing better. That's subjectively better. You have a higher standard of living in a Navigator not because having a higher grade leather seat or soft touch plastic dashboard actually have an objective improvement on your life. You have a higher standard of living because you have it and the other guy has to sit on regular leather. If everyone around you just had Navigators and larger houses, your standard of living would actually decrease. Objectively you'd still have the same large house and fancy SUV, but having a large house and fancy SUV wasn't what it was about. It was about having a larger house and fancier SUV than most people.
If you gave me an extra $2,000 a month frankly I don't really know what I'd do with it. Probably just save it. I'm just not interested. I drive economy cars, typically for around 8-10 years/150-200k, and then buy another one. I don't make Escalade or Navigator money but I could afford a well equipped Explorer if I wanted to. I just don't want to. I'd be no happier in it than I am with my economy hatchback. Given, no kids to haul around so the room isn't of any use to me and I don't have a boat to tow so that's not a factor either, which leaves image. I'd go get an old 4Runner if I wanted an SUV. That's one thing my economy hatchback doesn't do is backroads, but then I really wouldn't want to take my $50,000 SUV on them either. I might scratch the paint and what would the neighbors think about that.
It's easy to get sucked into the subjective trap. But if I stop and think about it, that's all that extra $2,000 is going to do for me. I'd be more comfortable buying a Navigator which is a vehicle that I do not need or event want. I don't even use all of my 1,200 square foot house as it is. All more house would mean is a higher heating/AC bill, more taxes, more cleaning.
It is not the best. The best IMO is where the middle class benefits and grows into a better standard of living.
Malloric already said it well, but... no. Increasing "standard of living" as measured by income and consumption, for those already living 'well,' is completely the wrong way to look at our economic future.
Malloric already said it well, but... no. Increasing "standard of living" as measured by income and consumption, for those already living 'well,' is completely the wrong way to look at our economic future.
Well certainly if you are in the middle class and are satiated, then you need no further help.
My impression is still that the broad middle class is not so flush with cash. Sure I could be wrong.
Well certainly if you are in the middle class and are satiated, then you need no further help.
My impression is still that the broad middle class is not so flush with cash. Sure I could be wrong.
Not really my point. It's time to flatten the curve, by both bringing up those who lack necessities and basic comfort and lowering the bar on "middle class" excesses.
There is quite simply nothing we could do, as a nation, to stabilize our long term economic situation than to sharply reduce consumer spending and consumption. Not to poverty or austerity levels... just to the elimination of excess. That most of our "excess" comes from China is secondary but not unimportant.
Not really my point. It's time to flatten the curve, by both bringing up those who lack necessities and basic comfort and lowering the bar on "middle class" excesses.
There is quite simply nothing we could do, as a nation, to stabilize our long term economic situation than to sharply reduce consumer spending and consumption. Not to poverty or austerity levels... just to the elimination of excess. That most of our "excess" comes from China is secondary but not unimportant.
I would never propose to lower the middle class bar!
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.
