The Economy Fallacy

[esalla]

One of the many inexplicable economic perversities of recent history is that the incredible increase in government borrowing and spending has not resulted in either inflation or higher interest rates. Indeed, with the Federal Government spending money RIGHT NOW like a tsunami of drunken sailors, mortgage interest rates are at historic lows, and inflation does not appear to be a significant problem.

I have not heard ANY explanation of how this is even possible

We are borrowing from overseas entities for the budget deficits.

Before we went head in to borrowing money from foreigners, the gvt had to borrow the money from we the people..... So, interest rates for we the people saving money, sky rocketed... my parents had some CDs paying 14% interest.....

By going overseas, it opened a world of money to borrow at our fingertips, interest on the borrowing stays lower, and we the people no longer are enticed to save money....interest rates on savings dropped, we were encouraged to spend money in the economy or risk stock market investment..... No longer savings....

Is my best guess?

Wages need to go up for the working class. Raising the minimum wage and being legal to our at-will employment laws in our at-will employment States can help improve the efficiency of our economy.

How about the minimum wage goes down and your pay still goes up?

LOL flip the burger Mr. Burger King

Sacrificing the End to the short-term micro-economic Profit means, like usual right wingers?

Actually I bought Apple and Google

Apple is splitting 4 for 1 soon and Google is 1500 bucks a share

You are what

Welfare

 

[PoliticalChic]

Now.....who's teaching economic theory in college?

Marxists.



10. Personal bias is a far larger factor than any ‘science’ when it comes to economics.
Economists are wedded to bigger government, more powerful government, (per Marxism) and this dictates their claims about economic policy.
Every one of the usual 'brilliant' Liberal pundits claimed the Soviet Union was about to surpass the United State, and would go on forever.


a. First, there is John Kenneth Galbraith, considered a saint and Liberal icon, who, in 1984, offered his considered opinion of the future of communism:
"That the Soviet system has made great material progress in recent years is evident both from the statistics and from the general urban scene. . . . One sees it in the appearance of solid well-being of the people on the streets . . . and the general aspect of restaurants, theatres and shops. . . . Partly, the Russian system succeeds because, in contrast with the Western industrial economies, it makes full use of its manpower." FACTS FROM THE U.S.S.R.

See the year in which that was stated?



b. "WHEN LESTER THUROW TALKS, DEMOCRATS LISTEN... liberal economist..." Fortune Magazine, 1987
In 1989 Thurow wrote this:

“Can economic command [communism, as opposed to the free market] significantly … accelerate the growth process? The remarkable performance of the Soviet Union suggests that it can … Today the Soviet Union is a country whose economic achievements bear comparison with those of the United States.” Justice to Ronald Reagan

Get that????

Another 'brilliant' Liberal economist out to support communism, i.e., command and control by big government.



c. In 1970 the winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, and the author of the best-selling and most popular economics text was Paul Samuelson.

"As non-economist Tim Bethell pointed out in a 1988 article in National Review,successive editions of Samuelson's Economics showed a graph of relative growth rates for the US and Soviet economies with the Soviet growth rate rising more steeply than the American one. ....the Soviets were projected to overtake the US in about twenty-five years."
John O’Sullivan, The President, the Pope, And the Prime Minister: Three Who Changed the World, p. 255

"With each new edition of the book, the date of intersection with the US economy was shifted out into the future. Samuelson's seventh edition (1967) ....put the Soviet economy at 50% of the US in 1960...with intersection ...in about 1990.

By the tenth edition (1976)....Soviet GDP had moved ahead to 57% of US........intersection point around the year 2000.

The graph has been dropped from Samuelson's ...(twelfth) edition.




BTW.... "It is a vulgar mistake to think that most people in Eastern Europe are miserable," wrote Samuelson in the tenth edition of his textbook "Economics." This, mind you, in the aftermath of the 1953 East German uprising, the 1956 Hungarian uprising and the Poznan protests in Poland, the 1968 revolution in Czechoslovakia--all suppressed with bloodshed by Soviet tanks."
http://www.beichman.com/Articles/SAMUELSN.htm


Reagan, on the other had it 100% correct.
But....what gets taught in the university???

Marxism and Soviet propaganda.

 

[danielpalos]

One of the many inexplicable economic perversities of recent history is that the incredible increase in government borrowing and spending has not resulted in either inflation or higher interest rates. Indeed, with the Federal Government spending money RIGHT NOW like a tsunami of drunken sailors, mortgage interest rates are at historic lows, and inflation does not appear to be a significant problem.

I have not heard ANY explanation of how this is even possible

We are borrowing from overseas entities for the budget deficits.

Before we went head in to borrowing money from foreigners, the gvt had to borrow the money from we the people..... So, interest rates for we the people saving money, sky rocketed... my parents had some CDs paying 14% interest.....

By going overseas, it opened a world of money to borrow at our fingertips, interest on the borrowing stays lower, and we the people no longer are enticed to save money....interest rates on savings dropped, we were encouraged to spend money in the economy or risk stock market investment..... No longer savings....

Is my best guess?

Wages need to go up for the working class. Raising the minimum wage and being legal to our at-will employment laws in our at-will employment States can help improve the efficiency of our economy.

How about the minimum wage goes down and your pay still goes up?

LOL flip the burger Mr. Burger King

Sacrificing the End to the short-term micro-economic Profit means, like usual right wingers?

Actually I bought Apple and Google

Apple is splitting 4 for 1 soon and Google is 1500 bucks a share

You are what

Welfare

The guy who can resort to the fewest fallacies, regardless. Not up to that task, my good Capitalist?

 

[PoliticalChic]

11. John Maynard Keynes, economist, could be considered as FDR’s exponent, and he believed that savings was akin to hoarding, and to greed, and that balancing budgets by paying down debt was unnecessary and counterproductive. He mocked the ‘cult of saving.’

“The morals, the politics, the literature and the religion of the ,,,[19th century] joined in a grand conspiracy for the promotion of saving, God and Mammon were reconciled. Peace on earth to men of good means. A rich man could, after all, enter into the Kingdom of Heaven- if only he saved.” Hunter Lewis, “Where Keynes Went Wrong: And Why World Governments Keep Creating Inflation, Bubbles, and Busts,” p. 121.



Keynes flatly rejected America’s tradition of saving and frugality: “the sole…objective of all economic activity” was consumption; lots and lots of spending. John Maynard Keynes, “The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money,” p. 104.

Economist Henry Hazlitt characterizes Keynesian economics: “the more you eat your cake, the more cake [to eat].” Hunter Lewis, op. cit. p. 134.





Still putting your faith in economists over weathermen and astrologers???

 

[PoliticalChic]

12. While particular experts, economists, or even the entire government, is limited in knowledge about the huge number of complexities that go into producing an economy, markets are the accumulation of all those complexities, the result of the interactions of uncountable individuals, canceling motives and accumulating decisions.

Hayek’s view is that markets are correct, whether they do what we wish, or not. They depend on “the actions of many individuals” which “will hardly ever be fully known or measurable.” Science functions by experiments which hold all things constant except for the factor being tested. This can never occur in economics: there are too many variables. Society’s variables are immeasurable.
While it is called 'the dismal science,' economics is far from a science.



With the Enlightenment came the view that man can know all things, and do anything. Dazzled by the advances science made in the science of the 18th century, the movement became the French Revolution, with the attempt to replace religion and morality with science and reason. The belief in economics is a remnant of that belief.



"It is a great irony of communism that those who did not believe in God believed that godlike knowledge could be concentrated at a central point. It was believed that government could be omnipotent and omniscient.”
Funny how Progressives have one view on religion, and the opposite for economics.

The Progressives/Liberals/Democrats, outspoken atheists, demand god-like central planning for economies.

“if life needs no intelligent designer, then why should the market need a central planner?”
― Matt Ridley, The Evolution of Everything: How New Ideas Emerge

 

[bluzman61]

You are wrong, PC. There are inviolate economic principles that one ignores at one's peril. The problem with predicting the future of the Economy is that there are too many "moving parts," and no economist can possibly account for all of the vital factors until they come to light.

Absent outside interference, Price is determined by Supply & Demand. When there is an international glut of oil, the price-per-barrel goes down; when there is an international shortage, the price goes up. Same for EVERYTHING ELSE that is sold in a free market.

Activity that is subsidized will increase; activity that is penalized (taxed) will decrease. Put an outrageous tax on luxury yachts, and people will stop buying luxury yachts. Pay people to have babies without a husband, and they will have babies without a husband.

When the Sovereign dictates prices, the market will react in rational and predictable ways. Raise the Minimum Wage to $15, and (a) employers will use less of it, (b) employers will find alternatives to human labor to get the job done, and (c) a "black market" of under-the-table employment will proliferate. It is as certain as daytime following the night.

"You are wrong, PC. "

Really?


In that case, you will be able to explain the following:


6. Government economists are feted and endorsed, not because they are correct, but because they support growing government, demanding more power for government....bigger and bigger government with more an more power.

“The Godfather of the neo-Keynesians, Paul Samuelson, was the lead critic of the supposed follies of Reaganomics. He wrote in a 1980 Newsweek column that to slay the inflation monster would take "five to ten years of austerity," with unemployment of 8% or 9% and real output of "barely 1 or 2 percent." Reaganomics was routinely ridiculed in the media, especially in the 1982 recession. That was the year MIT economist Lester Thurow famously said, "The engines of economic growth have shut down here and across the globe, and they are likely to stay that way for years to come."

The economy would soon take flight for more than 80 consecutive months.

Then the Reagan critics declared what they once thought couldn't work was actually a textbook Keynesian expansion fueled by budget deficits of $200 billion a year, or about 4%-5% of GDP.

Robert Reich, now at the University of California, Berkeley, explained that "The recession of 1981-82 was so severe that the bounce back has been vigorous." Paul Krugman wrote in 2004 that the Reagan boom was really nothing special because: "You see, rapid growth is normal when an economy is bouncing back from a deep slump."

Stephen Moore: Obamanonics vs. Reaganomics

In The Wall Street Journal, Stephen Moore says Ronald Reagan's economic program worked, but Barack Obama's policies have not.

www.wsj.com

Wanna see that again?

"You see, rapid growth is normal when an economy is bouncing back from a deep slump."



And this: Under Obama…..“Yes, this is the slowest U.S. recovery since WWII” Yes, this is the slowest U.S. recovery since WWII



Free markets work.....not government regulations.


Sooooo....no, I'm not wrong.

Fine post. Thank you, PC.

 

[bluzman61]

Now.....who's teaching economic theory in college?

Marxists.



10. Personal bias is a far larger factor than any ‘science’ when it comes to economics.
Economists are wedded to bigger government, more powerful government, (per Marxism) and this dictates their claims about economic policy.
Every one of the usual 'brilliant' Liberal pundits claimed the Soviet Union was about to surpass the United State, and would go on forever.


a. First, there is John Kenneth Galbraith, considered a saint and Liberal icon, who, in 1984, offered his considered opinion of the future of communism:
"That the Soviet system has made great material progress in recent years is evident both from the statistics and from the general urban scene. . . . One sees it in the appearance of solid well-being of the people on the streets . . . and the general aspect of restaurants, theatres and shops. . . . Partly, the Russian system succeeds because, in contrast with the Western industrial economies, it makes full use of its manpower." FACTS FROM THE U.S.S.R.

See the year in which that was stated?



b. "WHEN LESTER THUROW TALKS, DEMOCRATS LISTEN... liberal economist..." Fortune Magazine, 1987
In 1989 Thurow wrote this:

“Can economic command [communism, as opposed to the free market] significantly … accelerate the growth process? The remarkable performance of the Soviet Union suggests that it can … Today the Soviet Union is a country whose economic achievements bear comparison with those of the United States.” Justice to Ronald Reagan

Get that????

Another 'brilliant' Liberal economist out to support communism, i.e., command and control by big government.



c. In 1970 the winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, and the author of the best-selling and most popular economics text was Paul Samuelson.

"As non-economist Tim Bethell pointed out in a 1988 article in National Review,successive editions of Samuelson's Economics showed a graph of relative growth rates for the US and Soviet economies with the Soviet growth rate rising more steeply than the American one. ....the Soviets were projected to overtake the US in about twenty-five years."
John O’Sullivan, The President, the Pope, And the Prime Minister: Three Who Changed the World, p. 255

"With each new edition of the book, the date of intersection with the US economy was shifted out into the future. Samuelson's seventh edition (1967) ....put the Soviet economy at 50% of the US in 1960...with intersection ...in about 1990.

By the tenth edition (1976)....Soviet GDP had moved ahead to 57% of US........intersection point around the year 2000.

The graph has been dropped from Samuelson's ...(twelfth) edition.




BTW.... "It is a vulgar mistake to think that most people in Eastern Europe are miserable," wrote Samuelson in the tenth edition of his textbook "Economics." This, mind you, in the aftermath of the 1953 East German uprising, the 1956 Hungarian uprising and the Poznan protests in Poland, the 1968 revolution in Czechoslovakia--all suppressed with bloodshed by Soviet tanks."
http://www.beichman.com/Articles/SAMUELSN.htm


Reagan, on the other had it 100% correct.
But....what gets taught in the university???

Marxism and Soviet propaganda.

Thanks for ANOTHER fantastic post, PC.

 

[bluzman61]

12. While particular experts, economists, or even the entire government, is limited in knowledge about the huge number of complexities that go into producing an economy, markets are the accumulation of all those complexities, the result of the interactions of uncountable individuals, canceling motives and accumulating decisions.

Hayek’s view is that markets are correct, whether they do what we wish, or not. They depend on “the actions of many individuals” which “will hardly ever be fully known or measurable.” Science functions by experiments which hold all things constant except for the factor being tested. This can never occur in economics: there are too many variables. Society’s variables are immeasurable.
While it is called 'the dismal science,' economics is far from a science.



With the Enlightenment came the view that man can know all things, and do anything. Dazzled by the advances science made in the science of the 18th century, the movement became the French Revolution, with the attempt to replace religion and morality with science and reason. The belief in economics is a remnant of that belief.



"It is a great irony of communism that those who did not believe in God believed that godlike knowledge could be concentrated at a central point. It was believed that government could be omnipotent and omniscient.”
Funny how Progressives have one view on religion, and the opposite for economics.

The Progressives/Liberals/Democrats, outspoken atheists, demand god-like central planning for economies.

“if life needs no intelligent designer, then why should the market need a central planner?”
― Matt Ridley, The Evolution of Everything: How New Ideas Emerge

Thanks, again, PC, for yet another fine post.

 

[bluzman61]

The economics elites despise capitalism, with its trust of free-market individual.

1. Paul Krugman, in “The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008,” said that traditional free-market economics are “obsolete doctrines that clutter the minds of men.”
2. Paul Samuelson, Nobel laureate as well: “deregulated capitalism is a fragile flower bund to commit suicide,” and its supporters were “emotional cripples.”
3. Larry Summers, former White House National Economic Council director, explained how we need the government to save “the market system from its excesses and inadequacies.”
4. Capitalism becomes socialism under FDR: “One objective [of New Deal power policy] was to enlarge the publicly owned sector of the power industry…as a means of diminishing private control over the necessities of life.” Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., “The Age of Roosevelt: The Politics of Upheaval, vol.3,” p. 379.

And all of 'em wrong.

That fact seems to have escaped the several posters above.

It has NOT escaped me, PC.

 

[DGS49]

There is a tale that is told about a giant log, rushing down a raging river during the Spring thaw season. Closer examination reveals a group of piss-ants gathered on top of the log. They are having a loud and vociferous argument. They are arguing over which one of them is actually steering the boat.

This is the perfect metaphor for government economists controlling the economy.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There is a tale that is told about a giant log, rushing down a raging river during the Spring thaw season. Closer examination reveals a group of piss-ants gathered on top of the log. They are having a loud and vociferous argument. They are arguing over which one of them is actually steering the boat.

This is the perfect metaphor for government economists controlling the economy.

Who does control it, an why should they?

Consider my next post in that connection.

 

[PoliticalChic]

13. Speaking of god-like economic insight, on the Left, we have the geniuses of economics, lauded and prize winning scholars, such as

“Economist Paul Krugman predicts a 'global recession with no end in sight' if Trump wins​

Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman predicts a "global recession with no end in sight" if Donald Trump is elected president:

Economist Paul Krugman predicts a 'global recession with no end in sight' if Trump wins

The latest Speed Read,/speed-reads,,speed-reads, breaking news, comment, reviews and features from the experts at The Week

theweek.com

And…

“Steven Rattner: If ‘Trump Wins You Will See a Market Crash of Historic Proportions’
Steven Rattner: If ‘Trump Wins You Will See a Market Crash of Historic Proportions’



Versus reality:

“These reckless media smears were completely detached from the reality of Trump’s accomplishments in his first seven months. His tax and deregulation policies had created a record-setting economy. Unemployment rates for minorities had reached historic lows. He had strengthened the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and even shattered the leftist claims of a Trump-Russia collusion when he punished Putin’s murderous ally Bashar al-Assad with a devastating Tomahawk missile strike. Trump was also well on his way to destroying the Islamic caliphate in eight months—something Barack Obama had failed to accomplish with five years of feeble military efforts. The bizarre and baseless media attacks on the president were intended to halt Trump’s progress and shake the loyalty of his 63 million political sup- porters. Instead, Trump continued to rack up policy victories, while the media attacks actually intensified his public support.”
Horowitz, “Blitz,” Ch.3



How many times must 'economists' be revealed for what they are?

When Albert Einstein died, he met three New Zealanders in the queue outside the Pearly Gates. To pass the time, he asked what were their IQs. The first replied 190. "Wonderful," exclaimed Einstein. "We can discuss the contribution made by Ernest Rutherford to atomic physics and my theory of general relativity". The second answered 150. "Good," said Einstein. "I look forward to discussing the role of New Zealand's nuclear-free legislation in the quest for world peace". The third New Zealander mumbled 50. Einstein paused, and then asked, "So what is your forecast for the budget deficit next year?" —The Economist, June 13th 1992, p. 71).

 

[PoliticalChic]

14. History is replete with mistakes based on Leftist thinking; millions of human beings sacrificed to their doctrines. But, when it comes to applying Progressive ideas to economics, what’s wrong with ‘an educated guess’?

Hayek answers:

“To act on the belief that we possess the knowledge and the power which enable us to shape the processes of society entirely to our liking, knowledge which in fact we do not possess, is likely to make us do much harm.

In the physical sciences there may be little objection to trying to do the impossible; one might even feel that one ought not to discourage the overconfident because their experiments may after all produce some new insights. But in the social field, the erroneous belief that the exercise of some power would have beneficial consequences is likely to lead to a new power to coerce other men being conferred on some authority.

Even if such power is not in itself bad, its exercise is likely to impede the functioning of those spontaneous-ordering forces by which, without understanding them, man is in fact so largely assisted in the pursuit of his aims.” The Pretense of Knowledge | Friedrich A. Hayek



“…power to coerce other men being conferred on some authority.”

For Progressives, government is either about banning or mandating.

And ‘coerce’?

Think gulags, concentration camps, mental institution for sane folks. That power to coerce.

 

[danielpalos]

You think that is Bad; right wingers are willing to ignore our own Constitution and sacrifice the End to the Means.

 

[DustyInfinity]

The economics elites despise capitalism, with its trust of free-market individual.

1. Paul Krugman, in “The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008,” said that traditional free-market economics are “obsolete doctrines that clutter the minds of men.”
2. Paul Samuelson, Nobel laureate as well: “deregulated capitalism is a fragile flower bund to commit suicide,” and its supporters were “emotional cripples.”
3. Larry Summers, former White House National Economic Council director, explained how we need the government to save “the market system from its excesses and inadequacies.”
4. Capitalism becomes socialism under FDR: “One objective [of New Deal power policy] was to enlarge the publicly owned sector of the power industry…as a means of diminishing private control over the necessities of life.” Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., “The Age of Roosevelt: The Politics of Upheaval, vol.3,” p. 379.

And all of 'em wrong.

That fact seems to have escaped the several posters above.

I'm surprised so many of the esteemed left economists are declared collectivists. I thought they would pretend otherwise, like the Democrat Party for so many years. It is beyond me why failed philosophy would be held in high esteem. For some reason, they can't let it go, they can't learn from mistakes. The democrats even admit that their policies are doom to the middle class, and they think it is wonderful for there to be a political class and everyone else in poverty.

 

[DustyInfinity]

You think that is Bad; right wingers are willing to ignore our own Constitution and sacrifice the End to the Means.

So you want the end to justify the means?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The economics elites despise capitalism, with its trust of free-market individual.

1. Paul Krugman, in “The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008,” said that traditional free-market economics are “obsolete doctrines that clutter the minds of men.”
2. Paul Samuelson, Nobel laureate as well: “deregulated capitalism is a fragile flower bund to commit suicide,” and its supporters were “emotional cripples.”
3. Larry Summers, former White House National Economic Council director, explained how we need the government to save “the market system from its excesses and inadequacies.”
4. Capitalism becomes socialism under FDR: “One objective [of New Deal power policy] was to enlarge the publicly owned sector of the power industry…as a means of diminishing private control over the necessities of life.” Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., “The Age of Roosevelt: The Politics of Upheaval, vol.3,” p. 379.

And all of 'em wrong.

That fact seems to have escaped the several posters above.

I'm surprised so many of the esteemed left economists are declared collectivists. I thought they would pretend otherwise, like the Democrat Party for so many years. It is beyond me why failed philosophy would be held in high esteem. For some reason, they can't let it go, they can't learn from mistakes. The democrats even admit that their policies are doom to the middle class, and they think it is wonderful for there to be a political class and everyone else in poverty.

Darn good questions, there, Dusty

I have some beliefs that attempt to explain a great deal of the above, and are related to worship of government as a proxy for something else.


I'm working on several threads and use a book you can find on line...

Richard Wurmbrand..."Marx and Satan."

I base it on this: Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. Sherlock Holmes.

Yeah....really. You might find the threads interesting.

 

[DustyInfinity]

The economics elites despise capitalism, with its trust of free-market individual.

1. Paul Krugman, in “The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008,” said that traditional free-market economics are “obsolete doctrines that clutter the minds of men.”
2. Paul Samuelson, Nobel laureate as well: “deregulated capitalism is a fragile flower bund to commit suicide,” and its supporters were “emotional cripples.”
3. Larry Summers, former White House National Economic Council director, explained how we need the government to save “the market system from its excesses and inadequacies.”
4. Capitalism becomes socialism under FDR: “One objective [of New Deal power policy] was to enlarge the publicly owned sector of the power industry…as a means of diminishing private control over the necessities of life.” Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., “The Age of Roosevelt: The Politics of Upheaval, vol.3,” p. 379.

And all of 'em wrong.

That fact seems to have escaped the several posters above.

I'm surprised so many of the esteemed left economists are declared collectivists. I thought they would pretend otherwise, like the Democrat Party for so many years. It is beyond me why failed philosophy would be held in high esteem. For some reason, they can't let it go, they can't learn from mistakes. The democrats even admit that their policies are doom to the middle class, and they think it is wonderful for there to be a political class and everyone else in poverty.

Darn good questions, there, Dusty

I have some beliefs that attempt to explain a great deal of the above, and are related to worship of government as a proxy for something else.


I'm working on several threads and use a book you can find on line...

Richard Wurmbrand..."Marx and Satan."

I base it on this: Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. Sherlock Holmes.

Yeah....really. You might find the threads interesting.

It is like a rat in a maze trying to find a piece of cheese, and you give them a map, and they still can't find the cheese.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

One of the many inexplicable economic perversities of recent history is that the incredible increase in government borrowing and spending has not resulted in either inflation or higher interest rates. Indeed, with the Federal Government spending money RIGHT NOW like a tsunami of drunken sailors, mortgage interest rates are at historic lows, and inflation does not appear to be a significant problem.

I have not heard ANY explanation of how this is even possible

We are borrowing from overseas entities for the budget deficits.

Before we went head in to borrowing money from foreigners, the gvt had to borrow the money from we the people..... So, interest rates for we the people saving money, sky rocketed... my parents had some CDs paying 14% interest.....

By going overseas, it opened a world of money to borrow at our fingertips, interest on the borrowing stays lower, and we the people no longer are enticed to save money....interest rates on savings dropped, we were encouraged to spend money in the economy or risk stock market investment..... No longer savings....

Is my best guess?

my parents had some CDs paying 14% interest.....

And what was their real rate of return?

By going overseas, it opened a world of money to borrow at our fingertips, interest on the borrowing stays lower, and we the people no longer are enticed to save money

How can we borrow money overseas.....unless those foreigners were saving dollars?

 

[danielpalos]

The economics elites despise capitalism, with its trust of free-market individual.

1. Paul Krugman, in “The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008,” said that traditional free-market economics are “obsolete doctrines that clutter the minds of men.”
2. Paul Samuelson, Nobel laureate as well: “deregulated capitalism is a fragile flower bund to commit suicide,” and its supporters were “emotional cripples.”
3. Larry Summers, former White House National Economic Council director, explained how we need the government to save “the market system from its excesses and inadequacies.”
4. Capitalism becomes socialism under FDR: “One objective [of New Deal power policy] was to enlarge the publicly owned sector of the power industry…as a means of diminishing private control over the necessities of life.” Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., “The Age of Roosevelt: The Politics of Upheaval, vol.3,” p. 379.

And all of 'em wrong.

That fact seems to have escaped the several posters above.

I'm surprised so many of the esteemed left economists are declared collectivists. I thought they would pretend otherwise, like the Democrat Party for so many years. It is beyond me why failed philosophy would be held in high esteem. For some reason, they can't let it go, they can't learn from mistakes. The democrats even admit that their policies are doom to the middle class, and they think it is wonderful for there to be a political class and everyone else in poverty.

What are you talking about? Government is socialism. Why should they pretend otherwise? Free market Capitalism has not existed since the fall of Mogadishu, last millennium.