Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3
This is incorrect. In short order i can think of so many examples, but I assume none will change your view on this. Perhaps, the key point is that "financial wealth" is a concept with no real meaning - what is real is the measurement of true living standards.
|
Don't get all metaphysical on me here. Financial wealth has meaning. Though when I said it, I mean something other than its common meaning. I mean it as wealth that can be monetized. My family is an example of wealth that can't be monetized. "Financial wealth" actually means something else, but my point is valid for either meaning.
My point being that you can have all the wealth in the world, but unless you have someone who is willing to give you something of value for that wealth, it isn't actually worth anything in the wider economy. You can build neighborhoods' worth of houses, but if no one can afford to buy them, they're worthless. They're less than worthless.
Why aren't they investing, Ace? I'll tell you: they aren't investing because there isn't demand. There isn't demand because the middle class can't afford or isn't willing to buy things as much as they used to. Because people aren't sure they're going to have a job in a year. So unless you would like the government to reduce uncertainty in the job market, you're wrong about what the government should be doing.
The fact that these companies have all this fucking money and aren't doing a damn thing with it is pretty solid evidence that supply side theories are bullshit.