Ignore Ron Paul are the new marching orders?

[CA renter]

Brian,

Arraya’s post pretty much nails it.

Only time will tell, but in the meantime, the world is racing toward some significant shifts that will change how we perceive trade, capitalism, and power/money in general, IMHO.

[briansd1]

[quote=CA renter]Brian,

Arraya’s post pretty much nails it.

Only time will tell, but in the meantime, the world is racing toward some significant shifts that will change how we perceive trade, capitalism, and power/money in general, IMHO.

[/quote]

Arraya is exagerating for effect.

Arraya might be right long term. The significant shifts won’t happen but slowly in like 100 years.

But in the mean time, the world will be fine.

Even in the unlikely event America and the Western World become stagnant like Japan, economic output is not collapsing, just growing slowly. China and emerging countries simply need to fill in the gap to keep world GDP growing at say 5%.

$10,000/year per capita is considered rich. There are more than 300 million middle class consumers in China.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2011/0520/In-China-middle-class-affluence-not-political-influence

In the West, it’s mostly a question of demographics which America can solve easily by reforming entitlements and increasing immigration.

The shifts are more psychological. In the business world, everything is about growth and marginal boosts in sales. Companies concentrate on products, markets, and strategies that drive incremental growth.

Why do you think that Home Depot has check-out kiosks, signs and in-store annoucements in Spanish? They drive marginal sales. People who don’t speak Spanish or are afraid of immigration are feeling a major “shift”. But it’s all for the better.

Americans have become used to being catered to first. That will change over time. Products might get introduced and test marketed abroad first. We might get smart phones 6 months behind China.

Overall, it might work out all the better for us. We’ll save more; and we’ll feel the influence of the rest of the world more, rather than the other way around where we influence the world. We may end up with more choices, more products, more designs for around the world. More diversity might be culturally enriching.

A friend of mine is an executive at P&G and says that Cincinniti is teaming with people from all over the world because foreign markets are growing. American corporations are getting more of their profits overseas.

The challenge now is to get American aggregate demand growing; get Europe to a fiscal union; move China to a consumer economy (we don’t really want political upheaval in China now). Brazil, Russia, and India are growing. Other emerging countries as a group will also drive economy growth.

We’ll see who is right in 10 years.

[briansd1]

[quote=CA renter]Brian,

Arraya’s post pretty much nails it.

Only time will tell, but in the meantime, the world is racing toward some significant shifts that will change how we perceive trade, capitalism, and power/money in general, IMHO.

[/quote]

Arraya is exagerating for effect.

Arraya might be right long term. The significant shifts won’t happen but slowly in like 100 years.

But in the mean time, the world will be fine.

Even in the unlikely event America and the Western World become stagnant like Japan, economic output is not collapsing, just growing slowly. China and emerging countries simply need to fill in the gap to keep world GDP growing at say 5%.

$10,000/year per capita is considered rich. There are more than 300 million middle class consumers in China.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2011/0520/In-China-middle-class-affluence-not-political-influence

In the West, it’s mostly a question of demographics which America can solve easily by reforming entitlements and increasing immigration.

The shifts are more psychological. In the business world, everything is about growth and marginal boosts in sales. Companies concentrate on products, markets, and strategies that drive incremental growth.

Why do you think that Home Depot has check-out kiosks, signs and in-store annoucements in Spanish? They drive marginal sales. People who don’t speak Spanish or are afraid of immigration are feeling a major “shift”. But it’s all for the better.

Americans have become used to being catered to first. That will change over time. Products might get introduced and test marketed abroad first. We might get smart phones 6 months behind China.

Overall, it might work out all the better for us. We’ll save more; and we’ll feel the influence of the rest of the world more, rather than the other way around where we influence the world. We may end up with more choices, more products, more designs for around the world. More diversity might be culturally enriching.

A friend of mine is an executive at P&G and says that Cincinniti is teaming with people from all over the world because foreign markets are growing. American corporations are getting more of their profits overseas.

The challenge now is to get American aggregate demand growing; get Europe to a fiscal union; move China to a consumer economy (we don’t really want political upheaval in China now). Brazil, Russia, and India are growing. Other emerging countries as a group will also drive economy growth.

We’ll see who is right in 10 years.

[briansd1]

[quote=CA renter]Brian,

Arraya’s post pretty much nails it.

Only time will tell, but in the meantime, the world is racing toward some significant shifts that will change how we perceive trade, capitalism, and power/money in general, IMHO.

[/quote]

Arraya is exagerating for effect.

Arraya might be right long term. The significant shifts won’t happen but slowly in like 100 years.

But in the mean time, the world will be fine.

Even in the unlikely event America and the Western World become stagnant like Japan, economic output is not collapsing, just growing slowly. China and emerging countries simply need to fill in the gap to keep world GDP growing at say 5%.

$10,000/year per capita is considered rich. There are more than 300 million middle class consumers in China.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2011/0520/In-China-middle-class-affluence-not-political-influence

In the West, it’s mostly a question of demographics which America can solve easily by reforming entitlements and increasing immigration.

The shifts are more psychological. In the business world, everything is about growth and marginal boosts in sales. Companies concentrate on products, markets, and strategies that drive incremental growth.

Why do you think that Home Depot has check-out kiosks, signs and in-store annoucements in Spanish? They drive marginal sales. People who don’t speak Spanish or are afraid of immigration are feeling a major “shift”. But it’s all for the better.

Americans have become used to being catered to first. That will change over time. Products might get introduced and test marketed abroad first. We might get smart phones 6 months behind China.

Overall, it might work out all the better for us. We’ll save more; and we’ll feel the influence of the rest of the world more, rather than the other way around where we influence the world. We may end up with more choices, more products, more designs for around the world. More diversity might be culturally enriching.

A friend of mine is an executive at P&G and says that Cincinniti is teaming with people from all over the world because foreign markets are growing. American corporations are getting more of their profits overseas.

The challenge now is to get American aggregate demand growing; get Europe to a fiscal union; move China to a consumer economy (we don’t really want political upheaval in China now). Brazil, Russia, and India are growing. Other emerging countries as a group will also drive economy growth.

We’ll see who is right in 10 years.

[briansd1]

[quote=CA renter]Brian,

Arraya’s post pretty much nails it.

Only time will tell, but in the meantime, the world is racing toward some significant shifts that will change how we perceive trade, capitalism, and power/money in general, IMHO.

[/quote]

Arraya is exagerating for effect.

Arraya might be right long term. The significant shifts won’t happen but slowly in like 100 years.

But in the mean time, the world will be fine.

Even in the unlikely event America and the Western World become stagnant like Japan, economic output is not collapsing, just growing slowly. China and emerging countries simply need to fill in the gap to keep world GDP growing at say 5%.

$10,000/year per capita is considered rich. There are more than 300 million middle class consumers in China.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2011/0520/In-China-middle-class-affluence-not-political-influence

In the West, it’s mostly a question of demographics which America can solve easily by reforming entitlements and increasing immigration.

The shifts are more psychological. In the business world, everything is about growth and marginal boosts in sales. Companies concentrate on products, markets, and strategies that drive incremental growth.

Why do you think that Home Depot has check-out kiosks, signs and in-store annoucements in Spanish? They drive marginal sales. People who don’t speak Spanish or are afraid of immigration are feeling a major “shift”. But it’s all for the better.

Americans have become used to being catered to first. That will change over time. Products might get introduced and test marketed abroad first. We might get smart phones 6 months behind China.

Overall, it might work out all the better for us. We’ll save more; and we’ll feel the influence of the rest of the world more, rather than the other way around where we influence the world. We may end up with more choices, more products, more designs for around the world. More diversity might be culturally enriching.

A friend of mine is an executive at P&G and says that Cincinniti is teaming with people from all over the world because foreign markets are growing. American corporations are getting more of their profits overseas.

The challenge now is to get American aggregate demand growing; get Europe to a fiscal union; move China to a consumer economy (we don’t really want political upheaval in China now). Brazil, Russia, and India are growing. Other emerging countries as a group will also drive economy growth.

We’ll see who is right in 10 years.

[briansd1]

[quote=CA renter]Brian,

Arraya’s post pretty much nails it.

Only time will tell, but in the meantime, the world is racing toward some significant shifts that will change how we perceive trade, capitalism, and power/money in general, IMHO.

[/quote]

Arraya is exagerating for effect.

Arraya might be right long term. The significant shifts won’t happen but slowly in like 100 years.

But in the mean time, the world will be fine.

Even in the unlikely event America and the Western World become stagnant like Japan, economic output is not collapsing, just growing slowly. China and emerging countries simply need to fill in the gap to keep world GDP growing at say 5%.

$10,000/year per capita is considered rich. There are more than 300 million middle class consumers in China.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2011/0520/In-China-middle-class-affluence-not-political-influence

In the West, it’s mostly a question of demographics which America can solve easily by reforming entitlements and increasing immigration.

The shifts are more psychological. In the business world, everything is about growth and marginal boosts in sales. Companies concentrate on products, markets, and strategies that drive incremental growth.

Why do you think that Home Depot has check-out kiosks, signs and in-store annoucements in Spanish? They drive marginal sales. People who don’t speak Spanish or are afraid of immigration are feeling a major “shift”. But it’s all for the better.

Americans have become used to being catered to first. That will change over time. Products might get introduced and test marketed abroad first. We might get smart phones 6 months behind China.

Overall, it might work out all the better for us. We’ll save more; and we’ll feel the influence of the rest of the world more, rather than the other way around where we influence the world. We may end up with more choices, more products, more designs for around the world. More diversity might be culturally enriching.

A friend of mine is an executive at P&G and says that Cincinniti is teaming with people from all over the world because foreign markets are growing. American corporations are getting more of their profits overseas.

The challenge now is to get American aggregate demand growing; get Europe to a fiscal union; move China to a consumer economy (we don’t really want political upheaval in China now). Brazil, Russia, and India are growing. Other emerging countries as a group will also drive economy growth.

We’ll see who is right in 10 years.

[Arraya]

[quote=briansd1]
Arraya is exagerating for effect. [/quote]
I admit, I can see things early – but maybe by 5-10 years not 80-90. For example, I thought the next leg down was going to start a year ago. It looks like I was a little off.

[quote=briansd1]
Arraya might be right long term. The significant shifts won’t happen but slowly in like 100 years. [/quote]

That is straight up reality impairment.

[quote=briansd1]
Even in the unlikely event America and the Western World become stagnant like Japan, economic output is not collapsing, just growing slowly. China and emerging countries simply need to fill in the gap to keep world GDP growing at say 5%. [/quote]

It always amazes me that people will take past economics trends(in this case of a completely different country with completely different economy) and extrapolate them forward. The Japan analogy is completely irrelevant and highly unlikely. The answer simply is the world is a completely different place with completely new macro-forces. There is zero reason to think we we will be like Japan of the past 2 decades – Heck, Japan won’t be like Japan of the past 2 decades.

[quote=briansd1]$10,000/year per capita is considered rich. There are more than 300 million middle class consumers in China.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2011/0520/In-China-middle-class-affluence-not-political-influence [/quote]

So your making the case that China can make it with customers drying up in the West? Maybe, maybe not. The first credit collapse certainly sent shock waves to China. But, I admit, they may be able to muddle along while we are enveloped in depression and unrest.

[quote=briansd1]In the West, it’s mostly a question of demographics which America can solve easily by reforming entitlements and increasing immigration. [/quote]

Right. It’s simple. Bring in immigrants with chronic high unemployment, and little to no job growth. Not enough to make up for population increases, btw Brilliant. Yes making a thriving economy is easy, just add people and print money!

[quote=briansd1]
The shifts are more psychological. In the business world, everything is about growth and marginal boosts in sales. Companies concentrate on products, markets, and strategies that drive incremental growth. [/quote]

Here goes Brian again telling the american people their aggregate lower standard of living and rising underclass is in their head.

[quote=briansd1]
Overall, it might work out all the better for us. We’ll save more; and we’ll feel the influence of the rest of the world more, rather than the other way around where we influence the world. We may end up with more choices, more products, more designs for around the world. More diversity might be culturally enriching. [/quote]

Just replace us and we with me and I. This is the way Brian thinks. There must be something wrong with the rising tide of anger and frustration because I have more consumer choices and I pay less of TVs. Why it must be that fox news!

[Arraya]

[quote=briansd1]
Arraya is exagerating for effect. [/quote]
I admit, I can see things early – but maybe by 5-10 years not 80-90. For example, I thought the next leg down was going to start a year ago. It looks like I was a little off.

[quote=briansd1]
Arraya might be right long term. The significant shifts won’t happen but slowly in like 100 years. [/quote]

That is straight up reality impairment.

[quote=briansd1]
Even in the unlikely event America and the Western World become stagnant like Japan, economic output is not collapsing, just growing slowly. China and emerging countries simply need to fill in the gap to keep world GDP growing at say 5%. [/quote]

It always amazes me that people will take past economics trends(in this case of a completely different country with completely different economy) and extrapolate them forward. The Japan analogy is completely irrelevant and highly unlikely. The answer simply is the world is a completely different place with completely new macro-forces. There is zero reason to think we we will be like Japan of the past 2 decades – Heck, Japan won’t be like Japan of the past 2 decades.

[quote=briansd1]$10,000/year per capita is considered rich. There are more than 300 million middle class consumers in China.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2011/0520/In-China-middle-class-affluence-not-political-influence [/quote]

So your making the case that China can make it with customers drying up in the West? Maybe, maybe not. The first credit collapse certainly sent shock waves to China. But, I admit, they may be able to muddle along while we are enveloped in depression and unrest.

[quote=briansd1]In the West, it’s mostly a question of demographics which America can solve easily by reforming entitlements and increasing immigration. [/quote]

Right. It’s simple. Bring in immigrants with chronic high unemployment, and little to no job growth. Not enough to make up for population increases, btw Brilliant. Yes making a thriving economy is easy, just add people and print money!

[quote=briansd1]
The shifts are more psychological. In the business world, everything is about growth and marginal boosts in sales. Companies concentrate on products, markets, and strategies that drive incremental growth. [/quote]

Here goes Brian again telling the american people their aggregate lower standard of living and rising underclass is in their head.

[quote=briansd1]
Overall, it might work out all the better for us. We’ll save more; and we’ll feel the influence of the rest of the world more, rather than the other way around where we influence the world. We may end up with more choices, more products, more designs for around the world. More diversity might be culturally enriching. [/quote]

Just replace us and we with me and I. This is the way Brian thinks. There must be something wrong with the rising tide of anger and frustration because I have more consumer choices and I pay less of TVs. Why it must be that fox news!

[Arraya]

[quote=briansd1]
Arraya is exagerating for effect. [/quote]
I admit, I can see things early – but maybe by 5-10 years not 80-90. For example, I thought the next leg down was going to start a year ago. It looks like I was a little off.

[quote=briansd1]
Arraya might be right long term. The significant shifts won’t happen but slowly in like 100 years. [/quote]

That is straight up reality impairment.

[quote=briansd1]
Even in the unlikely event America and the Western World become stagnant like Japan, economic output is not collapsing, just growing slowly. China and emerging countries simply need to fill in the gap to keep world GDP growing at say 5%. [/quote]

It always amazes me that people will take past economics trends(in this case of a completely different country with completely different economy) and extrapolate them forward. The Japan analogy is completely irrelevant and highly unlikely. The answer simply is the world is a completely different place with completely new macro-forces. There is zero reason to think we we will be like Japan of the past 2 decades – Heck, Japan won’t be like Japan of the past 2 decades.

[quote=briansd1]$10,000/year per capita is considered rich. There are more than 300 million middle class consumers in China.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2011/0520/In-China-middle-class-affluence-not-political-influence [/quote]

So your making the case that China can make it with customers drying up in the West? Maybe, maybe not. The first credit collapse certainly sent shock waves to China. But, I admit, they may be able to muddle along while we are enveloped in depression and unrest.

[quote=briansd1]In the West, it’s mostly a question of demographics which America can solve easily by reforming entitlements and increasing immigration. [/quote]

Right. It’s simple. Bring in immigrants with chronic high unemployment, and little to no job growth. Not enough to make up for population increases, btw Brilliant. Yes making a thriving economy is easy, just add people and print money!

[quote=briansd1]
The shifts are more psychological. In the business world, everything is about growth and marginal boosts in sales. Companies concentrate on products, markets, and strategies that drive incremental growth. [/quote]

Here goes Brian again telling the american people their aggregate lower standard of living and rising underclass is in their head.

[quote=briansd1]
Overall, it might work out all the better for us. We’ll save more; and we’ll feel the influence of the rest of the world more, rather than the other way around where we influence the world. We may end up with more choices, more products, more designs for around the world. More diversity might be culturally enriching. [/quote]

Just replace us and we with me and I. This is the way Brian thinks. There must be something wrong with the rising tide of anger and frustration because I have more consumer choices and I pay less of TVs. Why it must be that fox news!

[Arraya]

[quote=briansd1]
Arraya is exagerating for effect. [/quote]
I admit, I can see things early – but maybe by 5-10 years not 80-90. For example, I thought the next leg down was going to start a year ago. It looks like I was a little off.

[quote=briansd1]
Arraya might be right long term. The significant shifts won’t happen but slowly in like 100 years. [/quote]

That is straight up reality impairment.

[quote=briansd1]
Even in the unlikely event America and the Western World become stagnant like Japan, economic output is not collapsing, just growing slowly. China and emerging countries simply need to fill in the gap to keep world GDP growing at say 5%. [/quote]

It always amazes me that people will take past economics trends(in this case of a completely different country with completely different economy) and extrapolate them forward. The Japan analogy is completely irrelevant and highly unlikely. The answer simply is the world is a completely different place with completely new macro-forces. There is zero reason to think we we will be like Japan of the past 2 decades – Heck, Japan won’t be like Japan of the past 2 decades.

[quote=briansd1]$10,000/year per capita is considered rich. There are more than 300 million middle class consumers in China.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2011/0520/In-China-middle-class-affluence-not-political-influence [/quote]

So your making the case that China can make it with customers drying up in the West? Maybe, maybe not. The first credit collapse certainly sent shock waves to China. But, I admit, they may be able to muddle along while we are enveloped in depression and unrest.

[quote=briansd1]In the West, it’s mostly a question of demographics which America can solve easily by reforming entitlements and increasing immigration. [/quote]

Right. It’s simple. Bring in immigrants with chronic high unemployment, and little to no job growth. Not enough to make up for population increases, btw Brilliant. Yes making a thriving economy is easy, just add people and print money!

[quote=briansd1]
The shifts are more psychological. In the business world, everything is about growth and marginal boosts in sales. Companies concentrate on products, markets, and strategies that drive incremental growth. [/quote]

Here goes Brian again telling the american people their aggregate lower standard of living and rising underclass is in their head.

[quote=briansd1]
Overall, it might work out all the better for us. We’ll save more; and we’ll feel the influence of the rest of the world more, rather than the other way around where we influence the world. We may end up with more choices, more products, more designs for around the world. More diversity might be culturally enriching. [/quote]

Just replace us and we with me and I. This is the way Brian thinks. There must be something wrong with the rising tide of anger and frustration because I have more consumer choices and I pay less of TVs. Why it must be that fox news!

[Arraya]

[quote=briansd1]
Arraya is exagerating for effect. [/quote]
I admit, I can see things early – but maybe by 5-10 years not 80-90. For example, I thought the next leg down was going to start a year ago. It looks like I was a little off.

[quote=briansd1]
Arraya might be right long term. The significant shifts won’t happen but slowly in like 100 years. [/quote]

That is straight up reality impairment.

[quote=briansd1]
Even in the unlikely event America and the Western World become stagnant like Japan, economic output is not collapsing, just growing slowly. China and emerging countries simply need to fill in the gap to keep world GDP growing at say 5%. [/quote]

It always amazes me that people will take past economics trends(in this case of a completely different country with completely different economy) and extrapolate them forward. The Japan analogy is completely irrelevant and highly unlikely. The answer simply is the world is a completely different place with completely new macro-forces. There is zero reason to think we we will be like Japan of the past 2 decades – Heck, Japan won’t be like Japan of the past 2 decades.

[quote=briansd1]$10,000/year per capita is considered rich. There are more than 300 million middle class consumers in China.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2011/0520/In-China-middle-class-affluence-not-political-influence [/quote]

So your making the case that China can make it with customers drying up in the West? Maybe, maybe not. The first credit collapse certainly sent shock waves to China. But, I admit, they may be able to muddle along while we are enveloped in depression and unrest.

[quote=briansd1]In the West, it’s mostly a question of demographics which America can solve easily by reforming entitlements and increasing immigration. [/quote]

Right. It’s simple. Bring in immigrants with chronic high unemployment, and little to no job growth. Not enough to make up for population increases, btw Brilliant. Yes making a thriving economy is easy, just add people and print money!

[quote=briansd1]
The shifts are more psychological. In the business world, everything is about growth and marginal boosts in sales. Companies concentrate on products, markets, and strategies that drive incremental growth. [/quote]

Here goes Brian again telling the american people their aggregate lower standard of living and rising underclass is in their head.

[quote=briansd1]
Overall, it might work out all the better for us. We’ll save more; and we’ll feel the influence of the rest of the world more, rather than the other way around where we influence the world. We may end up with more choices, more products, more designs for around the world. More diversity might be culturally enriching. [/quote]

Just replace us and we with me and I. This is the way Brian thinks. There must be something wrong with the rising tide of anger and frustration because I have more consumer choices and I pay less of TVs. Why it must be that fox news!

[briansd1]

[quote=Arraya]
Here goes Brian again telling the american people their aggregate lower standard of living and rising underclass is in their head.

[/quote]

Lower compared to what?

If we are able to maintain GDP, then our aggregate standard of living is constant.

Yes, income inequality is rising. Yes, unemployment is high.

That can be fixed throught policies. Government can step in and employ people in infrastructure projects, which will then lead to more employment. We just need the political will to do it. (I blame the Republicans for sacrificing the economy to score political wins. Listen to business executives on CNBC. They don’t complain about regulations, they complain about demand. Incidentally, the Republicans are harming the financial interests of their friends at the Chamber of Commerce.)

Demand in the West is not drying up as you put it; demand is not growing fast. Growth is the “feel-good” factor. If you buy a house today, and 10 years later, it’s the same price. You won’t be happy, expecially if you have to sell and pay the transaction costs.

With demand barely growing (not drying up) in the West, the BRIC and other emerging markets can make up the incremental growth.

I will admit that the energy to drive world growth for another 100 years might be lacking. But it might be plentyful.

Energy is the make-it-or-break-it factor, not lack of demand (shopping is the hunter-gathering instinct of human, you can always stimulate that).

[briansd1]

[quote=Arraya]
Here goes Brian again telling the american people their aggregate lower standard of living and rising underclass is in their head.

[/quote]

Lower compared to what?

If we are able to maintain GDP, then our aggregate standard of living is constant.

Yes, income inequality is rising. Yes, unemployment is high.

That can be fixed throught policies. Government can step in and employ people in infrastructure projects, which will then lead to more employment. We just need the political will to do it. (I blame the Republicans for sacrificing the economy to score political wins. Listen to business executives on CNBC. They don’t complain about regulations, they complain about demand. Incidentally, the Republicans are harming the financial interests of their friends at the Chamber of Commerce.)

Demand in the West is not drying up as you put it; demand is not growing fast. Growth is the “feel-good” factor. If you buy a house today, and 10 years later, it’s the same price. You won’t be happy, expecially if you have to sell and pay the transaction costs.

With demand barely growing (not drying up) in the West, the BRIC and other emerging markets can make up the incremental growth.

I will admit that the energy to drive world growth for another 100 years might be lacking. But it might be plentyful.

Energy is the make-it-or-break-it factor, not lack of demand (shopping is the hunter-gathering instinct of human, you can always stimulate that).

[briansd1]

[quote=Arraya]
Here goes Brian again telling the american people their aggregate lower standard of living and rising underclass is in their head.

[/quote]

Lower compared to what?

If we are able to maintain GDP, then our aggregate standard of living is constant.

Yes, income inequality is rising. Yes, unemployment is high.

That can be fixed throught policies. Government can step in and employ people in infrastructure projects, which will then lead to more employment. We just need the political will to do it. (I blame the Republicans for sacrificing the economy to score political wins. Listen to business executives on CNBC. They don’t complain about regulations, they complain about demand. Incidentally, the Republicans are harming the financial interests of their friends at the Chamber of Commerce.)

Demand in the West is not drying up as you put it; demand is not growing fast. Growth is the “feel-good” factor. If you buy a house today, and 10 years later, it’s the same price. You won’t be happy, expecially if you have to sell and pay the transaction costs.

With demand barely growing (not drying up) in the West, the BRIC and other emerging markets can make up the incremental growth.

I will admit that the energy to drive world growth for another 100 years might be lacking. But it might be plentyful.

Energy is the make-it-or-break-it factor, not lack of demand (shopping is the hunter-gathering instinct of human, you can always stimulate that).

[briansd1]

[quote=Arraya]
Here goes Brian again telling the american people their aggregate lower standard of living and rising underclass is in their head.

[/quote]

Lower compared to what?

If we are able to maintain GDP, then our aggregate standard of living is constant.

Yes, income inequality is rising. Yes, unemployment is high.

That can be fixed throught policies. Government can step in and employ people in infrastructure projects, which will then lead to more employment. We just need the political will to do it. (I blame the Republicans for sacrificing the economy to score political wins. Listen to business executives on CNBC. They don’t complain about regulations, they complain about demand. Incidentally, the Republicans are harming the financial interests of their friends at the Chamber of Commerce.)

Demand in the West is not drying up as you put it; demand is not growing fast. Growth is the “feel-good” factor. If you buy a house today, and 10 years later, it’s the same price. You won’t be happy, expecially if you have to sell and pay the transaction costs.

With demand barely growing (not drying up) in the West, the BRIC and other emerging markets can make up the incremental growth.

I will admit that the energy to drive world growth for another 100 years might be lacking. But it might be plentyful.

Energy is the make-it-or-break-it factor, not lack of demand (shopping is the hunter-gathering instinct of human, you can always stimulate that).

[Author]

Posts