Tea Leaf: The Economic 'Doomsayers'

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Denys Picard near montreal, QC
    March 9, 2012 4:13 a.m.

    Dear friend,
    I guess, as always, it depends on where you stand. Since most of the measures that have been taken over the past 3 years have consolidated the positions of those in power and special interest groups, it is not impossible that these people will again run into a cycle of goodies in the future months. But as usual, the general patterns of real wage collapse of the middle class have not been addressed during the past few years. As for the media, it will, as it usually does in the same binary fashion, when it gets a certain signal it turns its cameras only to the negative, and then when it gets another signal, it turns only to the positive. Obviously, this being an election year and in presence of the Main Stream MediaÂs overly positive bias for the current president, you can expect, as has already been observed, an general attitude of enthusiastic optimism to drown everybodyÂs rationalism. As for the real market brains, well they are never in the Stock market, but have always been in the Bond market.

  • Diligent Dave Logan, UT
    March 8, 2012 1:12 a.m.

    As I wait, really needlessly, for the DesNews to approve my opinion, Harry S Dent is one whose view I respect. He is one who has for a number of years pointed to the tie in between demographics and economics. His theory is is that there is a strong correlation between birth rates and the stock market, but note this, with about a 45 to 50 year lag!

    Compare the decline in birth rates in 1910 with the Great Depression of the 1930's, which lag was shortened with the many young men killed in World War I plus the many young adults killed by the flue pandemic of 1918. Demand for housing began to decline in 1926, and plummeted at the first of 1929.

    In fact, I have come to believe that the 'baby boom' (1946-1964) is what got & kept us out of the Great Depression. The 'baby boom' in fact, is as much or more defined by the birth dearths that preceded & followed it than by any high number of births in that period. Compared to the decade of 1900-1910, the post-WWII baby boom was subpar. And yet due to lower death rates since WWII, it left us with more people. Economies can't grow without populations.

  • Wally West SLC, UT
    March 7, 2012 10:17 p.m.

    @ David King 12:18 p.m. March 7, 2012

    "the Federal Reserve will always be able to get the Treasury to print more money. The question is, will that money be worth anything?"

    Econ 101 says no. Scarcity is inversely proportional to value.

  • Riles Midway, UT
    March 7, 2012 3:50 p.m.

    "I do not think much of those economic forecasters whose only message is, and nearly always has been, that U.S. economic and global collapse is just around the corner."

    This sort of caricature is nothing but a deflection from the fact that this Economic Futurist completely missed the boat on the Great Recession. I believe Jeff Thredgold actually wrote a book, pre-crash, predicting the coming age of prosperity, right on the cusp of the worst meltdown in the last 80 years. Tea Leaves indeed. I would encourage anyone interested to google Jeff Thredgold and look back at his newsletters from 2006 and 2007. Very interesting reading.

  • David King Layton, UT
    March 7, 2012 12:18 p.m.

    "Note: My view would suggest that a bank run is a virtual impossibility. As long as the Federal Reserve has the ability to Âcreate money, banks WILL have sufficient access to funds"

    Yes, the Federal Reserve will always be able to get the Treasury to print more money. The question is, will that money be worth anything? This process is not sustainable in the long run. Call me a doomsayer or whatever, but it's just common sense. As long as we live beyond our means, we are destined one day to live beneath our means.