Replies

While I agree with most of what you wrote; and while I also agree that many economic indicators are not positive -- I'm compelled to point out that the closure of giant chain stores is not one of those negative indicators. At other times, the closures could be a negative indicator; but, in this instance they are an indicator of something working right.

The giant chain stores mentioned have simply failed to evolve fast enough, in the face of the Internet commerce revolution. The problem isn't that people have stopped buying the type of merchandise these stores sell -- it's that people are buying the merchandise from on-line retailers instead. Consumers (i.e. us) want the lowest prices, and the best shopping experience. Unfortunately, for the giant bricks & mortar chains, the best prices and best shopping experience are in cyberspace.

Every recession precipitates some overdue changes. In an ordinary, business-cycle type recession, the changes might be nothing more than adjusting inventories. In a secular recession (or depression, if you prefer), major structural changes occur. The economy that emerges from the recession (depression) is more efficient and more productive. On average, everyone is better off. (That's the "greater-good" argument; and it does gloss over the pain and suffering of those most directly affected by the changes. In this case, the owners and employees of giant chain stores.) In a real sense, recessions are a necessary evil.

This is just the latest example of the "creative destruction" that Schumpeter (amongst many other economists) recognized as the greatest strength of free-enterprise capitalism. The very worst thing would be for government to step in and "do something" (for instance "rescuing" the giant chain stores). The big chain stores displaced the small independent stores on Main Street -- now, it's their turn to give way to a different business model.