originally posted by TOC
But during the new millennium, Lilly argues, the middle-income American family has become poorer.
Not to fuel the debate between the two political extremes, but I feel that I should point out from a personal perspective that I actually make 4 times as much now than I did in the early 90s. And I am quite fully in the middle class. Truth be told, I would probably term myself poor growing up so making it into middle class has been what I feel to be an accomplishment.
Now that said, I have to admit that I am hardly an economist so I can't say to what lesser or greater extent any government or political party has had on that accomplishment. However, I am somewhat of a semi-expert on human behavior considering what I do for a living so personally I blame a lot of our econmic trouble on individuals.
Now, don't get me wrong. I certainly agree that certain decisions by both parties over the years have added to and substracted from our problems as an economy, but in the 21st century I personally feel that the "information age" has played a huge role in the market.
20 years ago when John Smith cheated on his wife, got a divorce and was forced to dump a large amount of stock in the settlement the market had time to stabilize before Bill Jones found out about the sudden drop in his favorite stock and responded with a kneejerk reaction to what he mistakenly interpreted to be insider knowledge of some impending market force.
Today, however, any market change no matter how small or inconsequential is broadcast to everyone else in the world in a matter of hours if not minutes. Individuals and brokers respond instantly to market changes and destabilize things that really weren't seriously destabilized to begin with and if they were would have stabilized themselves if left alone for a few days.
I saw an interview the other day with an economist who actually suggested that people stay away from financial news except for 1-2 times per week because of just this sort of phenomenon.
