Gary Allan
Thread starter
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
Quote:
They're going to wear out their thesaurus pretty soon if 2% is a "plunge".
Well, depending on how you spin the employment numbers ..1%+/- determines whether we're in an inflationary environment or a recession. Naturally, the "spin" tends to manipulate the real number.
That is, we're extended, very far, in terms of 100% utilization of all available resources. Credit, debt, productivity ...there are just no more corners to sweep out at the scramble for the crumbs.
So, YES, 2% is a major hit.
But beyond all of the theoretical models working as they're supposed to in the self regulating manner that they surely can, there is some false notion that there is a sustainable environment for them to operate in a "business as usual" manner. The ultimate functionality of any given governess requires some form of assumed substrata to support it. In my interpretation of our "max utilization" in extraction market trends ...I see only "thin ice" supporting the system of distribution (of wealth, whatever).
Why would anyone embrace a economic theory of over extension as being valid ..when they would never sensibly practice this form of personal economics?? Would you ever put yourself at that level of "risk"? No, but for some reason ..it's a sensible way to run an economy and derive profit from. That is, capitalization on the vulnerabilities in the process ..while assuring that you're exempt from that which you say is "good".
How does this add up as not a formula for disaster with you managing to build, as best you can, your life boat? Why set a course for a disaster in the first place?