I read this and thought of the Ron Paul crowd on this site, pretty interesting light hearted article. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120546222207635805.html
This generation of kids will be impossible to please even if they had all that their role models paris hilton and spears have: They think that they are poor if they don't have everything...
Living in Mexico for a year has really made me realize just how priviledged America is...especially where I'm from, California. The beginning of this article just solidifies my new thoughts on America's youth even more.. a bunch of ungrateful little bastards.
Oh!!! Thank God for China, that all these consumer electronics are so cheap and affordable. Add to it easy credit to splurge on useless stuff, and you get a consumer-driven, debt-ridden society. I wonder for how long can they afford such a lavish lifestyle?
The Chinese and Indians equivalent generation will have these young Americans for Breakfast. Talk about the entitlement mentality.
Most people have a mentality saying "Me First" They want "Wealth Redistribution"? IMO, the basic principles of Mises Austrian Economics should be taught at school. The consumption economy seems unsustainable.
It's not a consumption economy its a service economy, google is a service, your internet cable is a service, your cellphone provider is a service, as is your lawyer, doctor, fireman, teacher. We don't have to make widgets to be the leading economy in the world, just like 70 years ago we didn't have to be in agriculture to be the leading economy of the world.
Why did it make you think of the Ron Paul crowd? Paulites are definitely not Obamaniacs. Obama promises to carry them from cradle to grave, Paul tells everyone they better learn to carry their own water, he's not going to use the power of government to carry them. Mr. Moore is an idiot. How many times have I read an article based around, "A new study shows..."? Like the last 20 studies showed something else, but now a new study shows, everything is different? Oh, and it's the hawkish WSJ taking a cheap shot at Obama. We should have massive increases in the standard of living. We have two parents working now. We've created massive educational and technological advances. Information distribution. Transportation. Every sector has seen growth, and the benefit is reaped by every consumer. But since Reaganomics, a lot of those productive gains have been realized by cheap foreign labor, not necessarily American innovation or hard work. It's hard to beat car parts made in China by employees making $1 a day. Not when the average GM worker costs $60 an hour with entitlements and pensions factored in. And car parts from Asia are a reality now. Parts made in Mexico have been a reality for over a decade. The difference between an Obama supporter and a Paul supporter is that the Obama supporter thinks we shouldn't have to face the music. A Paul supporter knows that facing the music is inevitable.
More than 70% of GDP is consumption. And the average citizen has a negative savings rate. In a society that doesn't create capital (savings) and consumes relentlessly, something is going to give at one point. You can't eat all day and never plant the next crop. No it's not. Goods and services = production. Production != Consumption. Consumption = 70+%. Production = <30% In 1980, we were the world's largest creditor nation, with a positive trade balance and savings rate. In 2008, we are the world's largest debtor nation, with a negative trade balance and savings rate. The good times are susceptible to reality. Unfortunately.
I think Sonig was throwing a nod to RP and his supporters, as they have made financial responsibility an essential pillar of the campaign. To Mr. Moore's article, guess I just don't see the young, self-centered, consumerist cipher as a centerpiece of the Obama electorate. It is a problem with how we raise our children, and seems to me this cuts across the board. Last year, in my own very small corner of the universe, I was asked to give a talk at our local college, in the culinary program, on what it is to start and run a restaurant, from the perspective of a chef-owner. Now, I am accustomed to public speaking, going back to days as student body president, field rep for a State Senator, as an actor for close to two decades, etc. I have never been thrown speaking as I was in this small little night. As I looked out over the sea of faces, to a student, I saw nothing but shock and horror that to own and operate one's own restaurant requires the kind of work it requires. By another way of example, several months earlier at my place, as part of what we did, I wanted to give the students from the culinary program the opportunity to work in a traditional French kitchen, as they got almost no hands-on training over the course of their 2-4 years there (insane - one day on stock making, what the French call fond, literally, foundation), and working in our kitchen was a massive immersion (we did everything on-premises, from butchery to 10-12 stocks and integral sauces, patisserie, charcuterie, etc.). One of them came in with great eagerness, and had a ton of native skill. After working for four days, she bailed, without notice, saying she wanted - and I quote - to cook for celebrities. Personally, a big part of why I think we're going to hell as a society. My kitchen also had some of the hardest working young people I've had the honor to come across, and I am deeply heartened to know those who learned from me can now stand tall in any kitchen in America. But the above two instances are unfortunately not atypical. We're ruining our children, and it will have ramifications for decades to come.
America had an advantage from all of the capital it built up over the last few hundred years. It had a lot of minerals and it exported a lot of oil to build its capital position. Now a lot of that capital has been squandered over the last 30 years by the baby boomers in particular. Now that a lot of commodities are in short supply worldwide and its going to be dog eat dog. A lot of the kids in America are in for a rude awakening.
I've been away from it for too long (20 years) to make a credible argument, but seems to me the myth of the service economy as panacea is a big reason. As manufacturing goes, so goes the national economy. Services optimally swirl around (in service to) a healthy manufacturing hub, and absent that hub, everything goes down. Bye bye trade, bye bye capital, bye bye economy.
In 2007 only 2.5% of the jobs lost that year we lost to production moving overseas. A lot of manufacturing is moving from the north of the united States to the south like Texas and South Carolina. Some of the biggest productivity gains came in the 1990s long after reaganomics. By the way, Toyota Camera one of the best selling cars in America, is designed, engineered, and built all in the United States. They said the same thing 100 years ago about our agriculture economy
Which is what I thought. Unfortunately, you'll probably see it in your lifetime if you're under 40. It doesn't matter if it is agriculture or manufacturing, or even service. The issue is the trade deficit. We're buying more than we sell, and we're consuming more than we produce. That is simply not sustainable. A productive society under consumes. Capitalism is based upon the notion of being able to accrue capital, as opposed to systems where capital gains are confiscated by the government or ruling class. Savings are the basis of capital. They are excess production (gain) or deferred consumption (sacrifice). When we have a surplus, we can invest those savings/capital into new endeavors. As Hon Daddy Hon mentioned, we're living off our accumulated prosperity. When we tap out, we're gunna have to go back to work and start over. I wish it wasn't so, but that's reality. We're seeing it in the dollar now. That the oil producing countries want to start dealing in Euros. Our dollar hegemony is coming to an end. Ron Paul or no Ron Paul.
Oh, sorry, I thought you were tossing a bone to the RP candidacy, since it cannot be denied fiscal responsibility is an important element of his policies. Although it was my area, it was a long time ago, so take it for what you will, but: we are too blinded by gross economies, and do not take a look at how sector declines impact others, and how different mixes in this way impact overall economies. In brief, ignoring sector declines in manufacturing means ignoring the amplifier effect therein - good paying manufacturing jobs mean money spent in other industries, and services tend to geographically cluster around manufacturing hubs (think logistics and transportation, for one). Employment dropoff in the manufacturing sector has not been due entirely to an endemic increase in productivity, as sector-based trade deficit stats show. American manufacturing is in trouble. People look to a weak dollar to spur exports, and are hopeful therefore of a dampened deficit; all while ignoring what is being produced, bought and sold. Sectors matter, and different ascendancies among sectors mean different gross results to economies.