 |
|
CerberusIV
|
|
There is a long history of US Presidents pushing foreign policy issues, often with military action, to divert attention from domestic economic problems. It doesn't necessarily mean a depression but it certainly doesn't look good.
If you have investment plans that are putting money into stocks for the long term (to pay off a property mortgage or for a pension) they should be OK as cheaper shares now should mean more payback in 20 years time (or it will all be so bad it won't matter). Short term investments are more risky.
I voted banana because I don't believe anyone knows for sure.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Tripledoc
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Spiffor
In short : no major depression, but an average depression. |
But a major depression is better if it is short, while an average 'Japan style' depression might go on for several decades.
I fail to see how deficit spending can save the day since quite frankly there is nothing really to spend money on, unless there is some revolution in renewable energy.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
CerberusIV
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Velociryx
When we were in their shoes, we bootstrapped our way up by buying what we needed from the (then Industrial Giant) Great Britain.
The nations that are doing what we did 200 years ago need to buy what they need to get started from those who are already industrialized....the west.
-=Vel=- |
Not quite, I'm afraid. 200 years ago Britain generally encouraged investment in the agricultural and mining development of its colonies, not their industrialisation.
Now China buys machinery once and then produces the goods it requires, and exports any surplus. Western money finances it, uses the profits to finance more investment overseas and little comes back to the average joe in the US or Europe.
A lot of Chinese corporations do most of their own R&D and are increasingly less reliant on the West for anything much.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999 time: 05:25
|
|
Really?
It seems to me (granted, I did only a cursory search here) that there have been DROVES of factories building everything from Airframes to Chipsets built all over Asia.
I would imagine that the expertise to build such facilities did not....*could not* have come from the local (largely peasant farmer) population, but rather, would had to have come from an already industrialized nation.
You can't build a modern sky scraper without modern expertise.
Likewise, you *could* attempt to develop every single industry you would need, in a bid for self-sufficiency, but to my knowledge, this has succeeded noplace on earth....so yep....like it or not, developing countries will have to buy from more developed ones.
And, as they develop...as their populations gain more affluence, they'll begin demanding luxury items and exotic imports......
It's precisely the way new markets develop, and to say we're runnin' out of potential customers is to say that the whole world is industrialized.
Anybody *really* care to make that argument?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
CerberusIV
|
|
My point is that a lot of the countries that are industrializing now, or over the next couple of decades are well on the way and past needing much from USA/Europe/Japan. That means facing up to industrial restructuring in the West, already well advanced in many countries, developing high tech and luxury products and ensuring investment happens here, not elsewhere. That last point is the critical one and a recession isn't going to help.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999 time: 05:25
|
|
Conflict is good for the munitions business, but just about nothing else, so yes...if there's war, there'll prolly be recession.
Once the war ends, if we're smart, we'll seek out and create opportunities to keep the global economy expanding.
America has a lot of business expertise. One need only to look at the sheer size of the US economy to realize that if you're a little fish, trying to get bigger, help from the guys who are already there is probably a good thing. Even better, accepting such help doesn't even require that you LIKE the other guy much (which is fortunate for us, since pretty much everybody in the world wants to see the US reduced to cinders--and a good bit of that is our own fault, but that's another topic).
So....even if a developing nation has a mind to go it alone, if we're smart (and in business, we surely are), we'll seek them out. We won't wait for them to come to us, we'll go to them....wherever they are, and we'll do a deal. We'll make the business happen.
Recession will be a bump in the road, but I do not predict anything close to the global depression the doomsayers always seem to trot out when there's the least little trouble on the horizon.
Seems like they watched the movie "rollover" and took it as gospel....
-=Vel=-
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ogie Oglethorpe
|
 |
Marietta, GA
Dec 1999 time: 05:25
|
|
Firstly I don't know the answer, but there are some drivers that may lend themsleves to a contraction of US economy.
The current set of distractions aside.
From a strictly US market, one can expect as the current projected demographic, the US will soon see a large glut of its population moving from productive and large time consumer ages of mid40's+ (baby boomers) into retirement withio the next 10+ years.
This means a large segment of our population will be marginal consumers, no extravagant expenditures for latest and greatest electronics, toys, pleasure items etc. There may be a slight impact in second houses in the southern regions for retirment homes etc. But by and large the big time consumers of 20-40 age groups wherein new cars, first time home buyers, etc. is going to be a shrinking market segment.
While I agree the world is the total market, one also need consider strength of US dollar, foreign policy (and the negatives we've garnered there of late), strength of local competition etc.
In short I don't know but I would agree that there is more than enough reason to be concerned.
OTOH I wouldn't invest in gold regardless but thats just my opinion.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Tripledoc
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Spiffor
There is no limit to the amount of money a hawkish administration can spend in the military. The huge raise of military funding was partly intended to instill money within the American economy. |
Surely there must be some upper limit. Military might must be paid for - the largest post being wages. Deficit financing does not add anything of value to the economy if it is just wages. It must be used to invest in productive or wealth generating enterprises.
A large well paid army might boost consumption. However armies are not paid to consume are they?
The army is not a welfare institution.
If the scheme is to instill money solely within the US economy as you stated then surely investment in foreign countries will suffer as the dollar depreciates and nothing will be done to correct the fundamental imbalance in the world economy - trade deficit wise.
I simply can't understand all this talk of how the level of consumption is an indicator of economic growth when the financial base for futher increases in consumption is not there and seemingly the demand is not there either.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25. Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|