"I am one of those who do not believe that a national debt is a national blessing, but rather a curse to a republic; inasmuch as it is calculated to raise around the administration a moneyed aristocracy dangerous to the liberties of the country."-- President Andrew Jackson - (1824)
Snow urges Congress to raise debt limit"Of all forms of tyranny the least attractive and the most vulgar is the tyranny of mere wealth, the tyranny of plutocracy."
~ Theodore Roosevelt
Personally I've had a record-breaking year economically and work for a manufacturer of technical equipment. I also do some consulting and have pretty much had to turn away jobs. YMMV.
When it comes to economics, the WSJ hits the bullseye, as usual.
I'm willing to bet that the Journal (in an editorial? titled "Cheers") used more than retail sales figures to argue the economy is doing well.
According to Journal editorialists, rising holiday sales figures belie the Democrats' efforts "to throw soot on the growth story by constantly saying that median incomes are falling." As the editorial condescendingly explained, "Judging by these holiday sales, somebody must have money."
Real per capita consumption is a better measure of rising incomes and has increased at an average annual rate of 2.3% during the past 30 years. Per capita consumption in the U.S. has doubled since 1975. Maybe Tonelson can explain how each American's real consumption could have doubled if real salaries were not growing.
The typical household today has a disposable income higher than any other time in history, and when taking into account all forms of benefits that workers now receive, compensation to workers is about 27% higher in real terms than 25 years ago. Workers earn in less than four days a week what their parents earned in five, and they make in three days on the job what their grandparents earned in five.
Of course, it's possible to make this argument with a straight face only by forgetting a little economic and financial concept called debt.
From David Malpass at NRO: Response: It makes sense for debt (and assets) to grow faster than GDP in a flexible, financially innovative economy. Faber’s 300 percent figure includes corporate debt, much of which is cascading (for example, an auto buyer borrows from a financing company which borrows from the credit markets). Other causes of increasing U.S. debt are low interest rates and the increase in home ownership. The issue is not so much the level of debt but whether sufficient capital formation is taking place in a market-based way to maintain growth. I think it is.Assertion: Credit-market debt is too high. “Total credit market debt as a percentage of GDP rose from around 120% in 1980 to over 300% at present,” according to Marc Faber’s April 20 Gloom, Boom and Doom Report.
The third quarter of 2005 was also the first since 1947 when net national savings as a whole went negative.
The official savings rate measure does not consider economic gains from patents, innovation, capital gains or land appreciation. Since 1997, Americans have cashed in more than $3.5 trillion in capital gains.
Yes, somebody has to have the money to finance the nation's ongoing shopping spree. Increasingly, however, it's not Americans, but their foreign creditors.
The fact that Americans have per capita assets of $89,800 makes us the top saving country in the world. (Japan is second at $76,900 per head.)
Tonelson is no different than Krugman or Paul Craig Roberts in that all of them intentionally ignore the facts to advance their anti-trade/anti-Bush agenda.
True. There are a lot of people with money to spend. It's the same as there have always been. One rich guy spends thousands of dollars and "consumer confidence" is up and the recession is over.
so China is going to pay my Visa bill?