zlacker

>>tedsan+(OP)
The US appears to be fully in the grips of centralized economic autarky. A tiny coterie of industrialists who have the President's ear decide how to allocate a gigantic amount of capital for their pet projects while the state raises tariffs and implements bans to protect them from competition.

Didn't go well for South America in the 60s and 70s but perhaps, as economists are prone to saying, "this time will be different".

>>rchaud+592
this is private capital. yes, we are in an era of big projects and big capital deployment. is that synonymous with centralized autarky? i don’t agree

>>whimsi+Ba2
This is an amount that would be a meaningful change to most US states' gross annual economic output that we're talking about, and a few people control it. Sounds pretty centralized to me.

The fact that a handful of individuals have half a trillion dollars to throw at something that may or may not work while working people can pay the price of a decent used car each year, every year to their health insurance company only to have claims denied is insane.

>>lenerd+hb2
Free movement of capital and the ability to identify promising projects and allocate our resources there are why our society is prosperous and why we are able to devote more resources towards healthcare than any society that has ever come before us.

This money is managed by small amounts of people but it is aggregated from millions of investors, most of these are public companies. The US spends over 10x that amount on healthcare each year.

>>whimsi+Xc2
Is that why I, and a lot of other people my age, have a lower standard of living than my parents did at the same point in their lives?

The "free movement of capital" only ever seems to move the capital one direction: up to the people who needed the labor of others to reach such wealth.

>>lenerd+0h2
The large majority of people do not have a lower standard of living than their parents at the same age. My dad’s family could not even afford shoes for him and he lived in Europe.

I am sorry that you feel you are downwardly mobile, but you should not assume your experience generalizes.

>>whimsi+Zh2
Mine lived in America. Where the story in the article is taking place.

This is, in fact, a generalized experience: [0]

[0]https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2019/02/14/millenn...

>>lenerd+vi2
> This is, in fact, a generalized experience

Your article is from 2019. We're now "wealthier than previous generations were at [our] age" [1].

[1] https://www.wsj.com/personal-finance/millennials-personal-fi...

>>JumpCr+rj2
WSJ? Might as well have not included it. It's paywalled.

That being said, it seems to reference property owners. Hell, if I'd had the money to buy a house prior to the pandemic, I would have. I didn't because of constant reorgs at my employer at the time, which resulted in hiring freezes and reduced raises. The goal behind these was to make the company attractive to buyers. Eventually, they did find one: Oracle. They've since gutted what was a major employer for my region.

Since the pandemic housing has skyrocketed and pay hasn't kept up. It's been stagnant for 40 years while economic output has risen, along with COL [0].

Where'd all of the value go?

(that's a rhetorical question)

[0]https://www.consumeraffairs.com/finance/comparing-the-costs-...

>>lenerd+Zl2
> it seems to reference property owners.

Yes. Millenials own property at the highest rate, age adjusted, in generations. (Anecdote: am Millenial. Own a home. Most of my friends do, too. Yes, it's a bubble, but it's a big one.)

> Where'd all of the value go?...(that's a rhetorical question)

No, it's not. It went to the people who bought houses. Including between 2019 and 2024.

Which generation's mode reached home-buying age in that interval, an interval also generously sprinkled with massive stimulus, a stock-market boom and forced consumption-reduction through stay-at-home orders? (That is a rhetorical question.)