To be judged successful, a new economic order would need to reverse the income and wealth declines that the bottom 60 percent of the country has suffered for decades.
Given that that claim isn’t true, not anywhere near, then the rest of this economic chinstroking can be ignored, right?
Washington Monthly.
Not quite as obviously stupid as Salon, but still very, very stupid.
Dennis, Consumer of Petroleum
CoP
Like it
Just don’t do it 28 times ‘cos that would make you CoP28, and that no good.
Wrong thread I know but I can’t see anywhere to comment on the ETF article. The statemen that the three ETFs all track the index s missing an important point. A low costs ETF will trade to match the index less frequently than the high cost ETFs. AFAIK no ETF claims to match index performance exactly (trading costs). Your lower cost ETF gives you guaranteed lower mgmt costs but a higher performance volatility (worth checking before buying).
Problem is, they keep measuring how that bottom segment is doing without figuring in the government benefits. Once you take those into account, they’re not doing badly at all.
while the poors suffer disproportionately from tightening as now?
Why not just print faster, higher, louder?
The only possibility of real change, these Millennial and Gen Z Americans believe … is to replace capitalism with Scandinavian-style socialism
Anyone who thinks the Scandis are socialist, really isn’t paying attention.
@? while the poors suffer disproportionately from tightening as now?
The “poors” also suffer disproportionately from unlimited money printing as wages and benefits don’t keep up with inflation. The tightening is necessary to control inflation. Without the money printer going brrrr, you wouldn’t need to tighten.
Are you really that stupid?