I think the mess really started around Truman's time...when we started to spend more than we made as a country....we had money reserves though, but we had commenced depleting the reserves....
...around by Reagan's time, we crossed over into the red, and were going into debt....which has continued to grow into the crazy string of significant figures we now refer to as the national debt.
If we as a country were a person, we'd have inherited a fortune, and lived beyond our means, wasting our fortune, and then borrowing enormous sums to keep up our standard of living.
Seems irresponsible.
Now, we owe China, Saudi Arabia, and so forth ENORMOUS amounts of money...which, can be considered to be leverage by them...if they need to move us in any desired direction.
Of course, THEY are heavily invested in OUR economy...so, when WE tank, they get dragged down too.
If WE stop buying, they stop selling...which means their registers are not ringing as they had been...and prices drop, etc.
If the problem was that the system needed 700 billion dollars more to work, fine, that might have fixed it.
I think its more like a bucket though...with suspected holes in the bottom.
The water drained out of the bucket, and we threw 700 billion in to re-fill it...but, the REASON the bucket was running dry, the hole(s), was not addressed in any meaningful fashion.
IE: What ever CAUSED us to reach this point will cause us to reach it AGAIN.
We NEED that bucket to put out this fire...but, the water is draining out on the way...and by the time we get to the fire, the 700 billion might have come in handy...but its already soaked into the ground, and unavailable...as we wasted it.
We did the same thing after the '29 crash...but, the situation was not the same...and, the value of the purchased commodities is not comparable. We bought junk...junk that was already tanking at a rate that LEAD to the collapse of the sellers of it.
So, sure, there will be SOME residual value, but, its NOT a good investment.
So - the new president will NOT see the economy recover in this term...unless its an artificial prop up, as a real fix would take too long.
His successor will potentially see the recovery, and, as history tells us, the successor will get all the credit for the fix done by his predecessor.
This means that whatever party wins, assuming they are blamed for the economy, will lose the next time around, and, the NEXT party will get credit for "fixing things".
The part that worries me, is that the Democrats tend to talk about "change", and the Republicans tend to represent security...so, the scarier the times, the more the Republican party gains...as change is scary.
That puts the Republicans about on target to "Save the Economy" a few years down the road, after "Years of Hardship under the Democrats"....or to "Finally save the Economy after YEARS of HARD WORK!"....if they win now, etc...
My 401K is about 2/3 of its starting value...but, I'm thinking that I don't actually lose any money UNLESS I sell. As long as it weathers the storm, when things improve, it will recover, and my retirement will be back on track.
Assuming I live to be 120 or so, and the economy recovers about as expected, I should be able to enjoy many weeks of retirement. igfly:
...around by Reagan's time, we crossed over into the red, and were going into debt....which has continued to grow into the crazy string of significant figures we now refer to as the national debt.
If we as a country were a person, we'd have inherited a fortune, and lived beyond our means, wasting our fortune, and then borrowing enormous sums to keep up our standard of living.
Seems irresponsible.
Now, we owe China, Saudi Arabia, and so forth ENORMOUS amounts of money...which, can be considered to be leverage by them...if they need to move us in any desired direction.
Of course, THEY are heavily invested in OUR economy...so, when WE tank, they get dragged down too.
If WE stop buying, they stop selling...which means their registers are not ringing as they had been...and prices drop, etc.
If the problem was that the system needed 700 billion dollars more to work, fine, that might have fixed it.
I think its more like a bucket though...with suspected holes in the bottom.
The water drained out of the bucket, and we threw 700 billion in to re-fill it...but, the REASON the bucket was running dry, the hole(s), was not addressed in any meaningful fashion.
IE: What ever CAUSED us to reach this point will cause us to reach it AGAIN.
We NEED that bucket to put out this fire...but, the water is draining out on the way...and by the time we get to the fire, the 700 billion might have come in handy...but its already soaked into the ground, and unavailable...as we wasted it.
We did the same thing after the '29 crash...but, the situation was not the same...and, the value of the purchased commodities is not comparable. We bought junk...junk that was already tanking at a rate that LEAD to the collapse of the sellers of it.
So, sure, there will be SOME residual value, but, its NOT a good investment.
So - the new president will NOT see the economy recover in this term...unless its an artificial prop up, as a real fix would take too long.
His successor will potentially see the recovery, and, as history tells us, the successor will get all the credit for the fix done by his predecessor.
This means that whatever party wins, assuming they are blamed for the economy, will lose the next time around, and, the NEXT party will get credit for "fixing things".
The part that worries me, is that the Democrats tend to talk about "change", and the Republicans tend to represent security...so, the scarier the times, the more the Republican party gains...as change is scary.
That puts the Republicans about on target to "Save the Economy" a few years down the road, after "Years of Hardship under the Democrats"....or to "Finally save the Economy after YEARS of HARD WORK!"....if they win now, etc...
My 401K is about 2/3 of its starting value...but, I'm thinking that I don't actually lose any money UNLESS I sell. As long as it weathers the storm, when things improve, it will recover, and my retirement will be back on track.
Assuming I live to be 120 or so, and the economy recovers about as expected, I should be able to enjoy many weeks of retirement. igfly: