New money comes from risk. It is created at the time of lending and said risk is valued. Basically, does the loan stand a chance of being repaid?
Right now, stats vary on this, but I saw one recently citing 140 million Americans at poverty level or below.
It is very clear, regardless of where one falls on all of that, very large numbers of people, and growing numbers at that, cannot participate meaningfully in also growing numbers of markets.
Their appetite for risk is nil, as they struggle to meet basic needs. Their liquid dollars are also nil, as what comes in goes right back out. A majority of Americans cannot handle a $1000 unplanned expense.
Credit only goes so far too.
On a moral basis, I find the idea of extreme wealth on the rise, while so many people really struggle, dubious.
But, just as a matter of economics, does it not make sense most people should be able to make it, even take some risk when they are working full time?
Who will buy the stuff otherwise?
Keep the money. By all means make more. But, maybe, just maybe paying people enough to participate goes along with the deal too.
Or, if not, why bother?
Failure on the wage front, measured by people unable to make ends meet
, and or,
put another way, failure to actually make it cheaper to live, those productivity gains, greater efficiencies not playing out as real for way too many people, unable to make ends meet on basically flat wages for decades now
, both combine to limit growth, increase overall costs and risks.
These manifest as crime, over dependence on safety net programs, limits on many new products and who can afford them, and a decline in standard of living for many over time.
The basic deal on all this is improvements for everyone in return for great profit and economic freedom for those getting it done.
Great! I am a believer, except for the growing number of Americans in real economic trouble. That kind of growth is toxic. It comes with costs, qnd even larger opportunity costs.
It is all those people checking out, not buying new cars, homes, starting little businesses, not making the next best thing in their garage that will really begin to add up now.
I want the super wealthy to carry on. Go make more. It is OK.
But, I also want those people able to participate and live modest reasonable lives too. As a nation, we will be so strong, capable, innovative...
I feel strongly that somehow capping wealth will not end well. Existing wealth, if no one else does, will fight that.
As they should.
Which leaves the question of labor, which just needs more, or just needs life to actually be cheaper to make things work well.
Some portion of people will fail. I get that, and we have safety nets and such for them. They are not in discussion.
No, this is about a growing body of hard working poor. Automation is not yet able to rid us of basic labors. And we all need those basic labors done too.
...unless we want to have to do them ourselves. I do not. I can do less basic things, and I should. So should everyone here.
But, our garbage people, food handlers, cleaners, diggers, builders, etc... have families too. Our kids probably play ball together.
I have said enough.
Keep the money, make more!
But also give some thought about how it actually gets cheaper to live a modest life, with dignity, family
, or
How do we get those basic labors better funded?
Either can work, and either will improve our growth, standard of living. As more people can participate in the growing number and scale of markets, the investments in them will deliver very nice returns over time.
I think people should make as much as they can.
New money comes from risk. It is created at the time of lending and said risk is valued. Basically, does the loan stand a chance of being repaid?
Right now, stats vary on this, but I saw one recently citing 140 million Americans at poverty level or below.
It is very clear, regardless of where one falls on all of that, very large numbers of people, and growing numbers at that, cannot participate meaningfully in also growing numbers of markets.
Their appetite for risk is nil, as they struggle to meet basic needs. Their liquid dollars are also nil, as what comes in goes right back out. A majority of Americans cannot handle a $1000 unplanned expense.
Credit only goes so far too.
On a moral basis, I find the idea of extreme wealth on the rise, while so many people really struggle, dubious.
But, just as a matter of economics, does it not make sense most people should be able to make it, even take some risk when they are working full time?
Who will buy the stuff otherwise?
Keep the money. By all means make more. But, maybe, just maybe paying people enough to participate goes along with the deal too.
Or, if not, why bother?
Failure on the wage front, measured by people unable to make ends meet
, and or,
put another way, failure to actually make it cheaper to live, those productivity gains, greater efficiencies not playing out as real for way too many people, unable to make ends meet on basically flat wages for decades now
, both combine to limit growth, increase overall costs and risks.
These manifest as crime, over dependence on safety net programs, limits on many new products and who can afford them, and a decline in standard of living for many over time.
The basic deal on all this is improvements for everyone in return for great profit and economic freedom for those getting it done.
Great! I am a believer, except for the growing number of Americans in real economic trouble. That kind of growth is toxic. It comes with costs, qnd even larger opportunity costs.
It is all those people checking out, not buying new cars, homes, starting little businesses, not making the next best thing in their garage that will really begin to add up now.
I want the super wealthy to carry on. Go make more. It is OK.
But, I also want those people able to participate and live modest reasonable lives too. As a nation, we will be so strong, capable, innovative...
I feel strongly that somehow capping wealth will not end well. Existing wealth, if no one else does, will fight that.
As they should.
Which leaves the question of labor, which just needs more, or just needs life to actually be cheaper to make things work well.
Some portion of people will fail. I get that, and we have safety nets and such for them. They are not in discussion.
No, this is about a growing body of hard working poor. Automation is not yet able to rid us of basic labors. And we all need those basic labors done too.
...unless we want to have to do them ourselves. I do not. I can do less basic things, and I should. So should everyone here.
But, our garbage people, food handlers, cleaners, diggers, builders, etc... have families too. Our kids probably play ball together.
I have said enough.
Keep the money, make more!
But also give some thought about how it actually gets cheaper to live a modest life, with dignity, family
, or
How do we get those basic labors better funded?
Either can work, and either will improve our growth, standard of living. As more people can participate in the growing number and scale of markets, the investments in them will deliver very nice returns over time.
Seems to me those are much better questions.