First, I greatly appreciate the comments from Joe Marier and Art Deco starting here, which clarify a lot and helped me think it over. Also, yes, the hyperbole helps the author not at all.
My thoughts, and they are ones that have gnawed at me and caused me to link to the essay in the first place, are related to two points:
(1) a great deal of the overall wealth is dependent on and driven by the necessity for two incomes, with all that entails (more here).
(2) The household debt explosion, which is right about at the annual GDP.
Those two factors have to be considered as well and undercut the wealth/income issues, correct?
The growth of wealth/income over the past forty years has been debt-driven in ways not seen since before the Great Depression, and puts all of it on a very shaky footing.
And the current fixes (across two administrations, it must be noted) are merely efforts to get the consumption spigot flowing again, exacerbating the underlying problems.
Unless, of course, I'm missing something.
Anyway, these are just preliminary thoughts, and I have no idea where this is going.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Be reasonably civil. Ire alloyed with reason is fine. But slagging the host gets you the banhammer.