Posted on 07/21/2004 6:50:12 AM PDT by Max Combined
WASHINGTON - Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan told Congress on Tuesday that he is concerned about a growing concentration of income in the United States, adding that the educational system has not created enough skilled workers.
At the same time, Greenspan said the recent rise in inflation appears to be short-lived, while warning that the central bank will become more aggressive in increasing interest rates if stronger inflationary pressures persist. He said the recovery was sustainable despite a recent "soft patch" in June. He added that inflation figures had risen but attributed much of the rise to "transitory factors" like a spike in oil prices.
"Economic developments have become quite favorable in 2004," he said.
The Fed chief created something of a surprise by agreeing with Democratic campaign statements that there is a growing gap in wages based on skill levels, with upper-income households benefiting more than any other group from the economic recovery.
(Excerpt) Read more at chron.com ...
These families are taxed at 15% of income as they live mostly off capital gains, while a doctor working 60 hours per week paying off student loans might pay 50% of income. The super rich promote raising taxes on high income workers, but don't touch their capital gains tax rates or they'll hold off realizing capital gains until they can elect a super rich President, with Forbes or Winthrop as their middle name.
this is a concern-corporations are greedy
One, his statement you quoted is accurate. We have more Jobs IN THIS COUNTRY as a result of Foreign Investment, than we have outsourced.
Two. HE is downplaying Outsourcing, and Inflation, and talking UP (in his way) SSI Privatization, and Education Reform.
In Essence, he used yesterdays little soiree, to advocate for Bush's re-election, by minimizing arguments against it, while advocating W's domestic agenda.
I'll Leave you with an unfiltered Greenspan quote....from
Alan Greenspan
before the Task Force on Social Security of the Committee on the Budget,
U.S. Senate
November 20, 1997
"There are a number of broader reform initiatives that, through the process of privatization, could increase domestic saving rates. Given the considerable stakes involved, these are clearly worthy of intensive evaluation. Perhaps the strongest argument for privatization is that replacing the current underfunded system with a fully funded one could boost domestic saving. But, we must remember that it is because privatization plans might increase savings that they are potentially viable, not because of their particular form of financing.
Moving toward a privatized defined-contribution plan would, by definition, convert our social security system into a fully funded plan "
The answer is he married a liberal. It happens to the best of them, Barry Goldwater are John McGlaughlin other examples of the same phenomena.
No, the educational system is designed to discourage rational thought and capitalism, which churns out ignorant, lazy workers.
Ignorant/lazy workers can't become 'skilled' because, well, they're ignorant and lazy!
The gap is then filled by workers from other countries.
The rich are buying up all the land and pushing up prices of housing beyond reach of nearly everyone. It is so ridiculous that new houses selling for 450,000 dollars are renting for 1,250 dollars which means they have a net loss on mortgage and expenses of nearly 3,000 bucks per month. Nobody is renting in this area.... so maybe it is happening elsewhere.
"corporations are greedy"
Everyone is greedy. We live in a world of limited resources and unlimited needs. The allocation of those limited resources to fill those needs so far as possible is what economic system attempt to do.
Dubya, don't let them suck you in.
Greenspan, effectively said "Re-Elect Bush" See above.
If that is true, then rent.
My question is - what does this trend mean in an overall general sense (regardless of additional factors)?
He was for Bush's reelection in 1997? How ominicient of him.....
Not in 1997, However, he was yesterday. That comment about agreeing with 'democratic campaign statements' is wishful thinking.
The greatest Democratization of wealth to date, has been the 401K which vastly increased the size of the investor class...I was merely pointing to his earlier statements on the same issue to illustrate the substance behind his Solon like utterings.
When he says 'democratize wealth' he is in fact advocating a position he has long held, and is clearly the Objectivist position.
It means that houses cost too much in California and prices will probably come down.
I was thinking they may crash down.... about 15-25 percent.
Sounds like what he's saying is trickle-down is not trickling and the average consumer good is increasing in price ala inflation. Overseas investment is more attractive than domestic investment, precisely the condition we had prior to the great depression.
Note to the wealthy, start investing domestically or rates will increase. Note to less than wealthy, your SOL until investment occurs domestically and the trickle-down log-jam is broken.
Does anyone have numbers on new business starts or small businesses that have been around for 3 or more years? The sign of a robust economy is thriving small businesses and I don't mean just mortgage brokers and lenders.
Isn't there a recent report about the hourly wage not keeping pace with prices?
How does an increase in consumer debt factor in? It seems that these small business jobs are mainly to pay off loans...
exactly right.
and when we get to that two tiered society - the Democrats will have a permanent super majority in this country, as the lower class will simply vote for people who promise them the most benefits and government programs for things that they can no longer afford by working in the private sector.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.