Gyroscopic Investing

MediumTex wrote: Did the Fed say that it was going to continue QE?

l82start wrote: much like like budget cuts in spending... tapering probably just refers to a reduction the amount they had planned to increase QE by...

MediumTex wrote:

l82start wrote: much like like budget cuts in spending... tapering probably just refers to a reduction the amount they had planned to increase QE by...

You mean that the Fed's QE activity is going to start "increasing at a decreasing rate"?

MediumTex wrote: I think that people may have forgotten that what we have is still basically a "Weekend at Bernie's" economy.

You can't take away any support from a situation like that without the whole ruse crumbling.

MediumTex wrote: I think that people may have forgotten that what we have is still basically a "Weekend at Bernie's" economy.

You can't take away any support from a situation like that without the whole ruse crumbling.

MediumTex wrote: I think that people may have forgotten that what we have is still basically a "Weekend at Bernie's" economy.

You can't take away any support from a situation like that without the whole ruse crumbling.

moda0306 wrote:

MediumTex wrote: I think that people may have forgotten that what we have is still basically a "Weekend at Bernie's" economy.

You can't take away any support from a situation like that without the whole ruse crumbling.

So what about what our economy produces is a ruse?  I mean maybe too many boxed cereals, flat tv's and plastic toys, but is there something particularly unnatural about the health of our productive capacity?

MediumTex wrote:

moda0306 wrote:

MediumTex wrote: I think that people may have forgotten that what we have is still basically a "Weekend at Bernie's" economy.

You can't take away any support from a situation like that without the whole ruse crumbling.

So what about what our economy produces is a ruse?  I mean maybe too many boxed cereals, flat tv's and plastic toys, but is there something particularly unnatural about the health of our productive capacity?

Without a favorable demographic situation to facilitate structural economic expansion, you're simply not going to get that "rocking" sort of economy that we had in the 1980s and 1990s.

The ruse is imagining that such rocking economic conditions could be possible without favorable demographics.

There are, of course, other economic headwinds such as high oil prices, high debt levels and a dysfunctional government, but I would say that bad demographics are the most serious headwind to the kind of economic expansion that we would probably like to be seeing right now.

The economy is very productive.  There is no question about that.  The question is whether this economy can expand at a desirable rate from current levels.

Mdraf wrote: Europe which is about a decade ahead of us in this demographic situation are attempting to solve it with massive immigration. They felt that young productive immigrants would provide the stimulus to the stagnant economy as well as a whole new tax base.  Unfortunately it hasn't worked out. instead of what they had hoped the immigrants are placing additional strain on the welfare state.

The economy is very productive.  There is no question about that.  The question is whether this economy can expand at a desirable rate from current levels.

doodle wrote:

The economy is very productive.  There is no question about that.  The question is whether this economy can expand at a desirable rate from current levels.

Economic expansion is a word that confuses me. What does it mean exactly? It seems that most of the economic expansion that happened over the last few decades was primarily caused by an expansion of FIRE sector and government deficit spending. What does this mean? How does this lead to real improvements in living standards?