Wednesday, May 4, 2016

Gary D. Halbert — Levy Economics: 90% Of Americans Worse Off Today Than In 1970s

FORECASTS & TRENDS E-LETTERby Gary D. HalbertMay 3, 2016

IN THIS ISSUE:
1. US Economy Grows by Weakest Pace in Two Years
2. 90% of Americans Worse Off Today Than in 1970s
3. 24% of Voters May Not Vote For Trump or Clinton

Value Walk
Levy Economics: 90% Of Americans Worse Off Today Than In 1970s
Gary D. Halbert

18 comments:

Six said...

This can't be right. Matt Franko says 95% of us are doing great.

Bob said...

Perhaps you need a prescription for rose-tinted glasses...

Matt Franko said...

in the 70's all I had was a 10 speed schwinn, a Rawlings glove, an Adirondack 33" ash, and a Wilson basketball....

MRW said...

And how old were you, Matt?

Matt Franko said...

7.... forgot the fishing rod....

Bob Roddis said...

Be thankful for that brilliant switch-over to 100% fiat in 1971. What could go wrong?

MRW said...

Matt. Rich kid. ;-)

MRW said...

Bob Roddis,

Ahh. The "brilliant switch-over to 100% fiat” happened in 1934 for the domestic US.

Calgacus said...

The study Halbert refers to but doesn't link to is Destabilizing an Unstable Economy.

Bob- What could go wrong? - Anything. But of course ending the gold fraud in 1934 & 1971 was a good thing. Grownups shouldn't believe in fairy tales - credit, fiat money always backed gold, not vice versa.

nivekvb said...

Yes, some people have done very well indeed, but most are worst of.

It is true that lots of people are sitting on a small fortune with their houses. But everything is relative, and so they can't sell because all the other houses are just as expensive too.

At retirement they might be able to sell and release some of the equity, and then their retirement might be quite nice. But the cost of property would have enslaved them during their working lives, lowering their quality of living.

The whole system is rotten to the core, and ill health, or even an early death, will wreck a retirement. Why only be comfortably off at the end of life, with the best years of your life gone forever, and all for a couple of poxy hundred grand made on our houses.

One of my friends said to me that no matter how much overtime I did, nothing would earn me more money than my house. I got angry with him because I was slogging my guts out to buy a house, six days a week, 12 hours or more a day. I would have sooner all the houses cost a lot less. The cheaper the better.


I'm not interested in getting rich, I would sooner have a more leisure time. We should be only working three days a week, not six days with overtime on top. When house prices go up, it's the bankers and estate agents that win.

nivekvb said...

Fiat currency is an amazing thing. That banks can create money out of nothing and not rely on savers has transformed modern society.

Public banks are needed to counter the power of the private banks. Or small community based private banks should be encouraged, like the Bank of Dave in the UK.

Printing new money need not be inflationary, especially if regulations are tight on the mortgage market.

Only bankers, the mega rich, and people involved in organised crime can own gold mines. Why give these people so much power?

Bob said...

Power is not given, it is taken. For example, what prompted Roosevelt to implement the New Deal? Was it from the kindness of his heart that he established social programs and asked the wealthy to fund it?

Why was the New Deal undone?

Matt Franko said...

calg,

"credit, fiat money always backed gold, not vice versa."

wrong.

How does your statement here square with this from Aristotle:

"Nomisma by itself is a mere device which has value only by nomos (law) and not by nature; so that a change of convention between those who use it, is sufficient to deprive it of value and its power to satisfy our wants." — Aristotle, "Politica."
"By virtue of voluntary convention nomisma has become the medium of exchange. We call it nomisma, because its efficacy is due not to nature but to nomos (law), and because it is always in our power to control it." — Aristotle, " Ethica."

Where is Aristotle defining a relationship between state currency (nomisma) and the metals?

Where?

Where?

There is NO relationship... the system is unrelated to metals... its a choice of which systems approach not a relationship...

Wray is caught up in the metonym "money!" and cant think clearly...

Tom Hickey said...

It is true that lots of people are sitting on a small fortune with their houses. But everything is relative, and so they can't sell because all the other houses are just as expensive too.

At retirement they might be able to sell and release some of the equity, and then their retirement might be quite nice


I know of a guy in London who makes his money selling retirement properties on the Black Sea to Brits who cash out their homes.

Same in the US. Close out your home in some expensive place and move to Florida or the Southwest where homes are relatively inexpensive.

Matt Franko said...

Tom right that is where all the northern public pension flows are going leaving the northern communities bankrupt...

But there is even an end to the Fla thing....I was down there over the holidays and found a state sponsored program where they will finance a home for 50% down and NO PAYMENTS other than paying the taxes (and maintaining the property)...

So the state of Florida has had to do 50% down home financing for only the property taxes in return.... will STILL end badly... if the people die in the properties and they have to be liquidated if the heirs dont want to take the property.... if no buyers then state finances in BIIIG trouble...

Calgacus said...

Matt, nothing you or Aristotle says there contradicts what I said. I was addressing Bob Roddis, who believes the commodity theory of money, that the value of a dollar is based on gold content or whatnot. Rather, you are repeating my point. There is no relationship to metals, and if there appears to be, it is because of a changeable (& frequently changed) convention.

We differ - at least verbally, at least on what we are focusing on - on the possibility of different systems. There is and has ever been only one system. One can choose to understand the actual system, or one can become entranced by illusions & self-created difficulties, the veil of metals & barter etc put on top of the one system. I was trying to explain that to Bob.

I don't think Wray is the one who is confused here. Belittling "money" as a "metonym" is. In general, any philosophy that tries to outlaw commonly, universally used words instead of understanding and incorporating them is a source of confusion, not a cure for it.

Bob Roddis said...

Calgacus: Thanks for demonstrating that you can’t follow an argument and that you know nothing of Austrian School analysis.

A. Austrian analysis is based upon the undeniable truth that value is purely subjective and that it is only objectively expressed through a truly voluntary exchange. This is the basis of the social calculation problem which also manifests itself in distorted and unsustainable prices when using fiat funny money. Thus, claiming that I believe that “the value of a dollar is based on gold content or whatnot” is nonsense.

B. The final and total switchover to a total fiat system in 1971 was, in fact, a final switchover from what was left of a voluntary exchange system to one where the authorities can create and pass out new funny money at their whim. The problems associated with such a horrible system were predicted and are the problems will have today. Those include shooting new funny money to the 1% who can speculate in asset bubbles (as opposed to true investments) while looting the purchasing power of average people. SO IT IS FRAUDULENT TO BLAME THOSE PROBLEMS on Hayek or “the free market” when they are the problems inherent in any fiat funny money system.

Create a power center, and the lowest of the low are going to control it while "progressives" concern themselves with nothing other than creating even larger power centers.

MRW said...

@Bob Roddis,

The final and total switchover to a total fiat system in 1971 was, in fact, a final switchover from what was left of a voluntary exchange system to one where the authorities can create and pass out new funny money at their whim.

Then explain the USA economy from 1934-1971.