Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsKrugman: Wealth Destruction
Paul Krugman
June 15, 2012, 5:54 pm
Wealth Destruction
...Anyway, to make a not terribly original point, the SCF is useful because it gives us information on the distribution of net worth, not just its level. When it comes to level, we have another and more timely source, the Feds flow of funds data. And heres what real net worth of households per capita looks like:
To say the obvious, the plunge in net worth took place under the previous administration; it bottomed out just two months after Obama took office, which makes it hard to claim that it was his fault.
The chart also illustrates just how much bigger the housing bust was than the tech bust of the early Bush years, which is why conventional monetary policy wasnt enough to cope and why we needed rising government employment and spending on goods and services, not the unprecedented austerity we actually got.
Finally, wealth growth during the Clinton years looks as if it was mainly real, with only a moderate bubble component; wealth growth in the Bush years was all bubble.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/15/wealth-destruction/
June 15, 2012, 5:54 pm
Wealth Destruction
...Anyway, to make a not terribly original point, the SCF is useful because it gives us information on the distribution of net worth, not just its level. When it comes to level, we have another and more timely source, the Feds flow of funds data. And heres what real net worth of households per capita looks like:
To say the obvious, the plunge in net worth took place under the previous administration; it bottomed out just two months after Obama took office, which makes it hard to claim that it was his fault.
The chart also illustrates just how much bigger the housing bust was than the tech bust of the early Bush years, which is why conventional monetary policy wasnt enough to cope and why we needed rising government employment and spending on goods and services, not the unprecedented austerity we actually got.
Finally, wealth growth during the Clinton years looks as if it was mainly real, with only a moderate bubble component; wealth growth in the Bush years was all bubble.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/15/wealth-destruction/
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
5 replies, 1658 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (10)
ReplyReply to this post
5 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Krugman: Wealth Destruction (Original Post)
cthulu2016
Jun 2012
OP
Heather66
(9 posts)1. Spam deleted by OKNancy (MIR Team)
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)2. K&R nt
tclambert
(11,087 posts)3. Why do the rich support the real destroyers of wealth?
At some point, their self-interest should kick in, and they say, "Hey, wait a minute! It's the Democrats who make us richer!"
tclambert
(11,087 posts)4. Answer to myself: Republican donations are coming mostly from SEVEN guys.
Seven stupid billionaires + Citizens United ruling = ridiculous campaign money available for the dumbest candidates ever.
n2doc
(47,953 posts)5. The rich have done quite well
This wealth destruction means lots of opportunities to pick up assets on the cheap. Their assets, like ultra high end housing and stocks, have done well. And the fewer middle class out there, the fewer potential competitors for limited resources in a changing and fading world. I don't think their short sightedness is limited to the 7.