|
This is hyperbolic stuff in the article. The economic structures are not that tenuous. If one does a complete mathematical model of the economy of 1901 - 1930 and compare it to the one of the last 30 years, there is really no valid similarity.
Pricing to value in both the equity and consumer markets are totally dissimilar to that of the 20's, for instance. The U.S. was effectively a debtor nation then, even though the books balanced, because money was still worth gold, so the gov't owed everyone exactly the amount of the money they held. That's often left out of the equation, which is why you see things like we were a creditor nation. Not completely true, because the perspectives were so much different than they are today.
Don't get me wrong, these idiots in the administration are totally clueless about the economy. They don't understand it, they think they know how to manage it, (they're wrong), things that matter they say don't, things that don't matter (marginal tax rates) they think do. It goes on and on.
But, as little optimism as i have apropos this bunch making things better (we'll need someone with the guts to raise the marginal tax rates to balance the outflow), it's not on the precipice of collapse. This is already a recession, and it will deepen some, slowly. But, we'll pull out of it. I've run the models on iterations, even including some chaos mechanics elements, and in about 17 tries (in which the model iterates 72,400 times each try), i can only get the economy to go into measurable collapse if everything on earth was suddenly worth nothing, there was zero demand for ALL goods and services, and nobody had any money. Of course, that's tautological. So, i didn't need a model to figure that out. But, the model can't simulate a collapse unless the obvious conditions of global collapse are extant.
It won't necessarily be pretty for the next few years, but there's no 1930 on the horizon, as far as i can tell. The Professor
|