 |
|  |
 |
|
Zkribbler
|
 |
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Feb 1999 time: 21:28
|
|
Usually the rule is: consumer spending up, corporate sales up, profits up, stock prices up.
The divergence in consumer spending and stock prices doesn't show that supply-side economics is working. Rather, it's a reflection of the reduced taxation on dividends, which makes stock-ownership more attactive. The rich, rather than investing in bonds, real estate, commodities, etc., are now directing their investments to stock ownership, and the resulting increase demand for stocks is driving up their prices.
The fact that consumer spending is reflective of a lessening of the standard of living for average Americans.
Thus, insofar as supply-side economics is designed to increase the wealth of the wealthy, it is succeeding. Insofor as it is designed to increase the wealth of all Americans, it is failing. 
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999 time: 21:28
|
|
I like simpler explanations. The speculative bubble in oil and gas futures that was driven by the mess in Venezuela and Iraq has popped, and a lot of the stock selloff from the market peak to the present was a result of overreaction. When you had the oil and gas bubble issues, you also had a crisis of confidence with Enron, Adelphia, Worldcom, GE, etc. playing games, and a CPA industry whore running the SEC. A lack of new scandals breaking has calmed down the institutional types, who can now tell themselves that stuff was all an anomaly, not standard practice in corporate America.
I don't see anything fundamental at all, just a reassessment that things weren't quite as bad as the initial hysteria indicated.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28. Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|