4 ms·
There's no reason to choose. This is the logical conclusion of runaway inequality: less consumption and oversupply of capital (aka financialization). In real te
by dnomad 8y ago
There's no reason to choose. This is the logical conclusion of runaway inequality: less consumption and oversupply of capital (aka financialization). In real terms, outside of the big three (education, real estate, and healthcare) we're seeing a great deal of demand destruction. Millennials are buying less of everything -- food, entertainment, clothing, transportation, and even babies. All the while the labor pool shrinks and shrinks ensuring the low demand becomes structural. On the supply side increasingly concentrated capital has no choice but to chase after any and every growth opportunity no matter how wacky. The whole thing is self-reinforcing in a kind of three body problem: low effective wages and big debts (student loans, mortgages) drive less consumption and low interest rate drive increasing asset prices drive wacky investments in bitcoin/real estate/education/healthcare ... which drive low effective wages and big debts.
All of this was predicted by Marx and isn't terribly surprising. The surprising thing here is that the new peasants are able to consume so little without owning land. The price of food and clothing and a lot of consumer technology has collapsed. Seems like most entertainment is either free or Netflix-style subscription (too cheap to meter). By some estimates [0] Millenials are spending just $20/day! The crashing birth rates are the future's problem and the growing political unrest and populism is unlikely to lead to anything but twitter fights. (It's possible it might lead to thermonuclear war but we're assuming nobody's stupid enough to press the button.) In the end there's really no need for global communist revolution if we can all get fat off junk food and keep each other entertained with youtube.
[0] http://www.businessinsider.com/millennials-genz-spending-less-2017-9 http://www.businessinsider.com/millennials-genz-spending-les...
- derriz 8y agoFrequently when I read a comment where Marx is quoted or referenced, I struggle to understand the point. The article discusses a trend that has lasted longer than 6 centuries. Are you claiming this is due to 600 years of runaway inequality? How does it make any sense to claim Marx predicted this since he was born more than 400 years later than the start of the trend described in the article?
- otoburb 8y ago>>By some estimates [0] Millenials are spending just $20/day! You may have missed the word "less": "By some estimates, Millenials are spending $20/day less than they were in 2016." The Gallop Poll[1] referenced in the Business Insider article shows that avg. spending by adults aged 18-29 was $93 in 2008 and $74 in 2016. [1] http://news.gallup.com/poll/215618/young-adults-report-spending-less-past.aspx http://news.gallup.com/poll/215618/young-adults-report-spend...
- Latteland 8y agoYour comments were somewhat interesting until you got 'this is as marx predicated'. Yeah, you'll have to be more specific about what exactly he predicted and how it matches today. I think today's world would be very surprising to the world of 25 years ago.