lolschool2011 wrote: Hey-O wrote: niederbomb wrote:
Not to be contrarian, but there are plenty of economists who will argue our economic "recovery" has been entirely artificial. There has been no fundamental change in the capital structure of the economy and when stimulus stops and interest rates are allowed to return to market levels we will have another housing-like crash in a different sector of the economy. I sure hope I'm wrong, but it's a real possibility.
What other sector of the economy are we talking about?
Also, a bunch of big banks went bust while others were forced to adapt or were bailed out. The foreclosure crisis is not getting worse, and it's reasonable to say that any financial company who's weathered it thus far is probably going to survive long term. So, in a way, the fundamentals of the economy have changed, and maybe the capital structure for the remaining companies is ok.
Also, a lot of the stimulus is already gone,
and most of it went to special interest groups anyway. I'm not sure current growth is solely or even significantly due to stimulus spending.
We might still be in a recession for a long time to come;
however, since we have thus far escaped the inflation of the 70's, and Chinese exports are weakening by the day, I think it's fair to say that the market will broadly get better between now and when I do OCI in 2012 or 2013.[/
Wow - this is a lot of wrong in a small amount of space. In any case, I corrected for you. I have direct experience in the sectors you're attempting to discuss and you are about as wrong as one can possibly be wrong. If you were being ironical or sarcastic, this would be a funny joke, but if you're serious, then most of what you said is ridiculously off.
Ok, sure. First of all, it wasn't the biggest banks that went bust, it was the (relatively) smaller ones that were over-leveraged, especially w/mortgage backed securities. Here's a list of the banks that failed since 2000: http://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/fai ... klist.html
Guess who won in this latest economic collapse? Chase, B of A, GMAC is still alive, Wells, etc.
Now there's even more of a concentration of capital (less competition anyone?) than before.
The collapse just made the rich, richer. To say that most of the stimulous went to "special interest groups anyway" is just categorically ridiculous. I can go on...[/quote]
Why did you write so tiny? And you refuted the details of that argument, not the core. The main point was that the financial markets in the US were fundamentally altered by the crash. I would agree with this. Now if that is a good or bad thing I don't know that's his point. Also, who cares whether or not the stimulus went to special interests (what does that even mean - every group is a special interest)? It's mostly spent anyway.
Also, the last sentence that you scratched was spot-on (okay a little weak in details, but still good). We have escaped inflation and stagflation and deflation, which is good. In spite of the fact that Fed just injected a huge amount of liquidity into the system. Good. Chinese exports are going to remain competition for a long time, but China is definitely trying to build a consumer economy and it has to deal with the rising inflation. And the way it will probably deal with it is by allowing the Yuan to appreciate at a faster rate. Which is good for the US.