Comments on: Redefining "Economic Prosperity"

By: Yossarian

Yossarian — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 02:06:06 +0000

jryskmpr:

The economy will decline no matter how that question is answered. Housing prices will drop, no matter how much or how little you like it.

It’s all in what you do with the information.

PS – household formation and other ‘housing growth’ statistics have pretty much all peaked.

By: jryskmpr

jryskmpr — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:15:45 +0000

So, should people be housed or shouldn’t they? Yes or no?

The economy is going to continue to decline until that question is answered, Yes.

By: brucewho

brucewho — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 07:18:38 +0000

And out of the ashes shall rise the Phoenix. Where there’s smoke there’s fire. It is future generations who will learn from our mistakes and regain prosperity. We’re too far gone. Would someone tell me how the people of this era are going to pay it back. Debt is a shackle that is nearly impossible to shed once clamped on. I see no will, no understanding, no gainful pursuit, no prayer, and most of all no santy claus to save the day. The debt will not miraculously go away. There will be no forgiveness. A score must be settled. There may be blood.

By: twist

twist — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 05:18:37 +0000

Yossarian-

I think since our government is now focused on keeping America “prosperous”, just exactly what that means is important.

If our goal is to increase the net worth of Americans, I doubt we’d have “economic stimulus” packages or cheap money to encourage spending and make saving less appealing.

Bless the Republicans in the Senate for slowing down the bailout. [Too bad they can't kill it.] Congress should take the time to consider what policies really make us prosperous in the long run, rather than the pseudo-prosperity of a “bubble”, doomed to pop.

By: Yossarian

Yossarian — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 05:03:55 +0000

Well, prosperity sure isn’t debt, that’s for sure. Other than that, it’s mostly semantics.
But this begs larger, more important questions.
Does everyone need to be wealthy, in order to have a viable society?
Is Phoenix the worst example of Smith’s Invisible Hand, or the best example of bad government intervention?
There’s lots to ponder about society…. if you read the polls nowadays… people are finally starting to realize that there’s a problem with society that consumption won’t fix. Libertarianism (as practiced by most Americans) is sliding into the piehole of history. What will replace it?
Who knows. Something that returns the empty suburbs to the desert, while putting money in people’s pockets.
We’ll have plenty of job-free time to talk about this, soon.
Tell a friend.

By: agnostic

agnostic — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 19:01:49 +0000

Prosperity is a function of net worth, not assets. Period.