This question is related to the logic behind Britain's Labor Parties platform regarding the nationalization of water and rails. Post 9/11 the bush administration advocated reckless credit card use to stimulate the economy. In 2007 they downplayed the economic crisis, attempting to manipulate consumer confidence to keep the bottom from falling out of the economy. In 2008 both parties unilaterally spent public funds on bailing out the banks and corporations responsible for our economic collapse, but completely ignoring the relevance of the deficit spending of labor(and the predatory practices of lending) in salvaging what little there was to salvage of the collapse. Since then labors share of debt has continued to increase as seen in your many points about the net assets of individuals and young families. How would things be different if we had instead used that money to bail out the debtors instead of the lenders? By extension wouldn't the lenders have still been bailed out by proxy without having the assets seized? What about student loans, credit cards, mortgages, etc? It seems that one of the largest issues wage stagnation has created is that individuals deficits are so massive that a pay increase is unlikely to stimulate additional spending. Instead it would be spent on paying down the debt. Additionally the rising interest rates(due to this wonderful tax cut) and the deliberate suppression of inflation has created a usurers paradise. So labor is falling even farther behind.
Showing 1 reaction
Sign in with