Brent P wrote:
In article .com, Leif Erikson wrote:

I didn't call it a collasping economy. I called it an economy of short
term thinking.

No more so than at any other time.

That is not comforting.

The implication of what you wrote is that in some glorious
not-too-distant past, people were more "long term" in their thinking.
You are wrong - there was no such golden age.

As for low cost products doing low income people no good, that is
absolutely false.

In the long term it doesn't.

Yes, it does. Low income people are paying less for goods. The prices
of the goods they buy are falling relative to their incomes. They're
better off.

Prove it.

This is elementary, little sophomore. If my income falls 10% but the
goods I wish to consume decline by 20% due to competition, I'm better
off.

You *really* need to study some economics. Your economic illiteracy is
appalling.


everyone, including the low income. As someone earlier pointed out,
China is planning a $7000 entry level car. Do you think that is of no
benefit to low income families here in the USA? You're so biased only
looking for negatives that you can't see the forest for the trees.

I don't think you understand the long term game.

You don't understand any long term game.

enlighten me then how one can borrow into infinity and never have the the
whole thing collaspe.

The amount of debt relative to the economy doesn't fluctuate very much.
You keep thinking that the amount of debt relative to wealth and
income is increasing, but you are wrong.