the problem is that it's possible for what superficially looks like vigorous growth to hide deep instability. I interpret the US boom of the late 1920s in these terms, just like Bob Pollin's interpretation of the "Clinton boom" in his recent book. The current boomlet also seems unsteady, based on what looks like excessive consumer indebtedness and a housing bubble.
Of course, as with a financial bubble, no one can predict when such a unstable boom will end. The best we can say is that it becomes increasingly unstable -- unless something or someone comes to the rescue. I don't look forward to the next recession (even though I might benefit from royalties on the phrase "the second dip of the Dubya recession), since it will hurt a lot of people. It might also deepen reactionary politics. ------------------------ Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > -----Original Message----- > From: s.artesian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 10:55 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Deflation? > > > Nothing new here. It's just the old contrary contrarian > thesis in list form. Besides since when are economic > vulnerability and expansion incompatible? Unless somebody is > predicting disaster, catastrophe, species-extinction, > vulnerability and expansion go hand in hand. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Doug Henwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Jun 18, 2004 10:43 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [PEN-L] Deflation? > > Hmmmm, I think it's worth testing the hypothesis that when PEN-L gets > a thread going on economic vulnerability, the economy is about to > accelerate. This is a good real-time test. > > Doug >
