To understand that a dollar spent can add more than a dollar's value to the economy (as that dollar goes to the business it was spent at, which will then use that dollar for other things - like hiring another person,or buying more goods for the business, or putting it in a bank which then uses that to loan money to someone else, etc)
And there's entire arguments in the field - Keynesianism, the Austrian school, etc.
So I mostly just suggest talking to the experts. Preferably a diverse set from the various schools of thought, because in the course of their debate you'll probably get a good sense of the pros and cons of your chosen policy.
Still, in the course of my dabbling, there are some things I think are important.
First, and in the stock market especially, the genuine use and purpose gets overwhelmed by the human tendency to game the system.
For example in the value of the stock is supposed to be related to the expected profit. A company does well, it pays out a dividend to it's shareholders, and the value of the stock should be related to that expected payout (though, tbf, that value probably depends on how long you expect to hold the stock. For example, if you expect to hold it for ten years and expect a dividend of $1/share every year then a stock price less than $10/share would give you a profit. Eventually. But if you only expect to hold it for one year you would need to purchase the share for less than $1 to see a profit. Via the dividend that is.)
This isn't considering the value of selling your stock, ofc, which leads to the part where people start gaming the system.
Because instead of valuing the stock based off expected payouts, many people try to value it based off what everyone else values it as. And they all want some secret that will let them buy low and sell high.
Which means that the actual value stops being related to the likely dividend from a company, and instead turns into a game of predicting what everyone else is doing and trying to outguess them.
In other words, we get big dramatic bubbles and price fluctuations related more to specific short term events rather than any solid analysis of what a company should actually be valued at.
It's not that stocks or the stock market are bad per se. It's that the way people use it gets decoupled from it's real purpose, is prone to manipulation, and basically becomes little better than gambling.
Unless you're in it for the long haul, I suppose. Or any other number of caveats I'm sure an economist could tell you.
But I digress.
When I think about the entire economic system, I think about the very basics.
Like, manipulating the money multiplier by adjusting interest rates or what percentage of it's funds a bank needs to keep on hand vs use to lend out to others is all well and good. And again, go find a professional to talk to for that.
But what is the real source of all that? Where does that first dollar that gets multiplied come from?
Or if we talk about capitalism and the means of production and businesses making smartphones and all that... Those businesses have to have people buying their goods - at a profit no less - if they are to grow and expand. Or show that there's enough of a market for a competitor to set up shop.
Obviously, this then turns the focus to consumption, and reminds me of George W Bush and the whole "buy, buy, buy" campaign after 9/11. Except there's a very obvious problem with that, one which I can't believe all these highly educated people miss.
For consumers to spend, they have to have disposable income. If you want to have consumer spending get you out of a recession, or kick start the economy, or whatever - they need to be making enough money to be able to easily increase their spending.
Having all your income tied up in essentials (your rent or mortgage, a car payment, a student loan, healthcare, plus groceries) gives you very little to spend on anything else.
I think that's part of why economists have not seen the previously expected increase in unemployment in the cities that raised the minimum wage.
Don't get me wrong - deciding a fair wage is a very situation specific kind of thing, and yes it's entirely possible that at some rates wages will be too high and would make businesses choose not to hire more people and lead to unemployment.
It's just that currently we're so far in the other direction that it goes the other way. It gives more people more disposable income that they spend on more things, giving businesses more profit, etc.
All of which is a fancy way of saying "the shrinking of the middle class is a problem for everyone. The stinginess of businesses refusing to pay fair wages and the way the wealthy hold on obsessively to stockpiles of money ultimately hurts the very economy they claim to value."
Being upset about that is not just sour grapes, or lazy people trying to get unearned wealth. It is drawing attention to a major issue, one that will lead to future problems if not addressed.
And the obstinate refusal to take it seriously, and to work towards a society with a thriving middle class, is an indicator that all the people currently benefiting from this system so not, frankly, deserve to be where they are.
No comments:
Post a Comment