"distribution of average income growth during expansions"

[© tweed]

[Person Man]

If things are kind of heading back to the roaring 20's, does this necessarily mean that there will be a depression?

[King]

While this is horrendous, the roaring 20s only lead to a Depression because the inequality was coupled with an isolationist anti-trade austerity government and a terribly inept Federal Reserve that thought contracting the money supply was the right thing to do during the stock market crash.

If the Paulites seized power of the executive, I'd be concerned about another Depression. As it stands, things will just be melancholy indefinitely.

[Person Man]

While this is horrendous, the roaring 20s only lead to a Depression because the inequality was coupled with an isolationist anti-trade austerity government and a terribly inept Federal Reserve that thought contracting the money supply was the right thing to do during the stock market crash.

If the Paulites seized power of the executive, I'd be concerned about another Depression. As it stands, things will just be melancholy indefinitely.

That's what we thought in the Bush years. The Republicans are now trying to force through austerity and with flagging growth in other parts of the world, there could be depressed trade. I guess the only thing that could prevent a meltdown is a D Federal Reserve, right?

[Mehmentum]

I don't think its a coincidence that the first time average income growth was higher for the top 10% than it was for the bottom 90% was during the Reagan administration.

The current trend is just depressing.

[King]

While this is horrendous, the roaring 20s only lead to a Depression because the inequality was coupled with an isolationist anti-trade austerity government and a terribly inept Federal Reserve that thought contracting the money supply was the right thing to do during the stock market crash.

If the Paulites seized power of the executive, I'd be concerned about another Depression. As it stands, things will just be melancholy indefinitely.

That's what we thought in the Bush years. The Republicans are now trying to force through austerity and with flagging growth in other parts of the world, there could be depressed trade. I guess the only thing that could prevent a meltdown is a D Federal Reserve, right?

I don't think there's much difference between a D and R Federal Reserve. The only people qualified to work at the central bank generally agree on the same basic principles. It's a moderate institution.

Gridlock is actually helping the Fed make decisions. The budget projections and tax code have been set in immovable stone due to it and so there's no worry about making a decision and then rashly the Congress swoops in and changes the environment the Fed was working under.

Most importantly, I don't smell a bubble anywhere. We're now 6 years after the crash. At the 6 year point after the tech bubble burst (Fall 2007) and the housing bubble was ignited to save us from it, we could already see the economic downturn and Bush was beginning to send stimulus packages to the Congress to save his hide. And remember the tech bubble started around 1995, so 6 years is usually when things tumble down.

There is literally no inkling of anything bad happening right now. No companies or banks on the verge of failure. No Bear Stearns canary in the coal mine. That's the silver lining to "slow growth." We may not see another recession this decade at this rate.

[AggregateDemand]

This graph is called globalization. Maybe if you nuked every proletariat on earth, except Americans, we could return to the days of lavish real wages and onerous marginal tax rates.

Personally, I think we should modernize US socioeconomic policy. I know that's crazy talk, but I don't think the globalization genie will go back into the bottle.

[Person Man]

While this is horrendous, the roaring 20s only lead to a Depression because the inequality was coupled with an isolationist anti-trade austerity government and a terribly inept Federal Reserve that thought contracting the money supply was the right thing to do during the stock market crash.

If the Paulites seized power of the executive, I'd be concerned about another Depression. As it stands, things will just be melancholy indefinitely.

That's what we thought in the Bush years. The Republicans are now trying to force through austerity and with flagging growth in other parts of the world, there could be depressed trade. I guess the only thing that could prevent a meltdown is a D Federal Reserve, right?

I don't think there's much difference between a D and R Federal Reserve. The only people qualified to work at the central bank generally agree on the same basic principles. It's a moderate institution.

Gridlock is actually helping the Fed make decisions. The budget projections and tax code have been set in immovable stone due to it and so there's no worry about making a decision and then rashly the Congress swoops in and changes the environment the Fed was working under.

Most importantly, I don't smell a bubble anywhere. We're now 6 years after the crash. At the 6 year point after the tech bubble burst (Fall 2007) and the housing bubble was ignited to save us from it, we could already see the economic downturn and Bush was beginning to send stimulus packages to the Congress to save his hide. And remember the tech bubble started around 1995, so 6 years is usually when things tumble down.

There is literally no inkling of anything bad happening right now. No companies or banks on the verge of failure. No Bear Stearns canary in the coal mine. That's the silver lining to "slow growth." We may not see another recession this decade at this rate.

I wouldn't go that far, but I would definitely say that there could be no recession until well after the next election. However, we would be a lot more vulnerable if there was another bubble. And of course, energy might be the next bubble.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Ugh!  Alright, I'm back on the Sanders bandwagon.