Thread: Middle Class Bubble

the greater the debt:taxbase ratio we have, and the more the $ is devalued, the less middle class there can be. didn't need to be this way, but we've been deliberately uneducated in alternative economic theory and have been for our lifetimes and our parents lifetimes. Alternative economic theory that explains what is happening and why, is finally gaining traction, but way too slowly and still not given recognition by PTB-since they are vested in every way shape and form in reigning economic theory.

and besides that, PTB never implemented reigning economic theory the way it was meant to be implemented-if they had, we'd be in far better longterm shape as a country. where we are today is consequence of decades of short-term, politically convenient economic decisions by PTB. politically-convenient decisions today set the stage for all our economic tomorrows.

Has the script for the movie "2016" been leaked? The difference between today and hundreds of years ago is that we know now just HOW the members of the elite class manage the serfs.

Originally Posted by SkyPilot

1. Just thinking about history a bit, and it seems to me that the phenomenon of the "middle class" since WW II is not really unsustainable.

Maybe we need to accept a reality in which there will be a much more narrow slice of the statistical pie which is in this category.

If so, and globalization along with a more socialistic populace is going to inevitably erode the US economy, should be begin to accept and position ourselves to live and do with less and not more?

Just sayin...

Trying to understand your statement. You start with a double negative. Are you saying the middle class is NOT sustainable or IS sustainable?

My confusion grows when you say "we" need to accept reality. Do you me "we" as in the middle class will be a smaller piece of the pie? I ask because your next statement about "more socialistic populace" is completely at odds with that preceding statement. If the middle class is NOT sustainable and IS shrinking how does the populace become more socialist? Furthermore why would the conlcusion be that we simply need to accept concentration of wealth?

Finally I'd like to see one example of a civilization where allowing concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a select few has proven "sustainable".


I will agree that "we" (as in everyone, regardless of class) need to learn to live with less because we are a growing population. That is, the pie stays the same size but the number of people splitting up the pie keeps increasing. As such, we learn to share better or increase the efficiency with which we use the pie OR we choose arbitrary groups of winners and losers (haves and have nots). Now, I know which choice is more equitable and democratic and, on the other hand, which has been the path of dictators through the ages...but that's a discussion for another place.

Exactly! Seriously, this is a question rather than a statement and is intended to provoke dialogue. This is not a thesis, and I understand the confusion if one is trying to relate to it from such a vantage point. However, when you say "
Finally I'd like to see one example of a civilization where allowing concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a select few has proven "sustainable".", I would ask what civilization in general has ever proven "sustainable"? Of course, that may depend on one's definition of "sustainable" or "civilization".

It seems wealth always accrues in the hands of the few, then uprising, revolution, distribution and then accumulation under the new regime... a useful primer on this cycle is the classic "Animal Farm", (or was it Animal House).

Originally Posted by Mapper

Trying to understand your statement. You start with a double negative. Are you saying the middle class is NOT sustainable or IS sustainable?

My confusion grows when you say "we" need to accept reality. Do you me "we" as in the middle class will be a smaller piece of the pie? I ask because your next statement about "more socialistic populace" is completely at odds with that preceding statement. If the middle class is NOT sustainable and IS shrinking how does the populace become more socialist? Furthermore why would the conlcusion be that we simply need to accept concentration of wealth?

Finally I'd like to see one example of a civilization where allowing concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a select few has proven "sustainable".


I will agree that "we" (as in everyone, regardless of class) need to learn to live with less because we are a growing population. That is, the pie stays the same size but the number of people splitting up the pie keeps increasing. As such, we learn to share better or increase the efficiency with which we use the pie OR we choose arbitrary groups of winners and losers (haves and have nots). Now, I know which choice is more equitable and democratic and, on the other hand, which has been the path of dictators through the ages...but that's a discussion for another place.

My comments about not fully understanding the initial post are real. Are you suggesting maybe it is NOT sustainable or IS sustainable?

I think it is sustainable. I think the loss of the middle class is exactly what is tearing our country apart. Concentration of wealth and power in the hands of fewer and fewer individuals/families will lead to exploitation of the masses. The masses will only take it so long before they lash out. If we want a society that values security and opportunity (regardless of origin) we need a solid system of checks on the power of the very wealthy. Otherwise we the masses get stuck as drones and trade in opportunity for security. This, of course, is the heart of labor battles.

I think we all benefit by the creativity unleashed when opportunity is given to the most number of people. And that, to me, is what a healthy middle class is all about. And ultimately, the American Dream is all about. There will always be rich folk and there will always be poor folk. When the poor folk have the tools available to make it the middle class and likewise the middle class can make a better life and maybe make the upper class. However, these days, seems for more and more in my generation that is slipping away. People feel stuck and/or maybe moving backwards...even the successful ones, meanwhile we see the wealthy/powerful are hoarding and building empires. I think the wealthy/powerful are very worried about the masses. I think the economic engine is slowing because creativity is stymied by lack of social mobility. Ironically it's a trap they set.

You want a better life - vote for Romney.

There's a large difference between what is legal and what is just. Simply because you can do something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. That man doesn't recognize the difference. I cannot support a man with no morals

I feel a ground swell blow out coming and Jimmy will be looking for another job as a caddy.

Originally Posted by Mapper

Finally I'd like to see one example of a civilization where allowing concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a select few has proven "sustainable".

Define "sustainable". Answer appears to be every one, for hundreds or thousands of years. Our experient is very short. People are easily led.

I will agree that "we" (as in everyone, regardless of class) need to learn to live with less because we are a growing population. That is, the pie stays the same size but the number of people splitting up the pie keeps increasing. As such, we learn to share better or increase the efficiency with which we use the pie OR we choose arbitrary groups of winners and losers (haves and have nots). Now, I know which choice is more equitable and democratic and, on the other hand, which has been the path of dictators through the ages...but that's a discussion for another place.

Why not just make more. M2 is growing without difficulty. Just make more wealth, the good way or the bad way, but make more, and stop thinking the pie has one size.

Tom, oh Tom......... we're at it again.

Could it be that the “middle class” is just a historical aberration that we have come to institutionalize because of a myopic view of history? Maybe this period of prosperity has produced a “bubble” that cannot be sustained due to an end to westward expansion, globalization of markets and limited resources. The historical axion related to “have’s” and “have not’s” does not leave room for “have enough’s, but not a great deal extra”…. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer… ?