EETimes.com – Meltdown unlikely, says Stanford economist — In case you were looking for good news.
I’ll be here all week! A general economic slowdown is the most likely result of the current woes on Wall Street, according to a leading economist.
The electronics industry should fare better than most in such a scenario, said A. Michael Spence, a 2001 Nobel laureate in economics. However, he cautioned a small risk still remains that the current crisis could lead to a broader meltdown.
“Bottom line is that no one will be untouched, [and] electronics should experience a slowdown but perhaps less so than the financial sector and perhaps the overall economy,” wrote Spence, former Dean of Stanford’s Graduate School of Business in an email exchange. “The IPO market could be difficult for an extended period and having financing and conserving cash by keeping cash burn down would be advisable,” he said.
another brain washed college idiot..
china stopped all lending to US banks several days ago… i’d like to know just who congress
is going to borrow the 700bill -should they eventually ram it down our throats..
maybe now we’ll see if there is actually any gold left in Fort Knox. speaking of…i bet gold will hit 1500+ within the next 10days..
2000 in 20…silver, eh..140 onw to 300..
::yawn::
-s
time to move to south of the equator.. ;p
oh hey…wait i have the best short term investment yet in these times..
TREES! -as whole forests will vanish as the
The Fed and every other major bank starts printing up gargantuan amounts of paper to replace the mad runs on the banks..
ps, buy a wheel barrel.. you’ll need it to cart your money to the store to buy bread (or heat your furnace)
#19–brm==no one thinks thats a good idea. I assume you would also do away with social security benefits for those who don’t contribute?
Otherwise, I think a mandatory tax for Soc Sec is a good thing as it brings these low income people “into the system.” People should pay for their benefits as much as possible.
With the lowend competition from illegal immigrants, I’d like to capture their soc sec tax as a small offset anyway.
So, seems to me with everyone’s income averaging up (Congress, Rich Guys) I think the minimum wage should go up for poor guys and our military.
#11: if he can get it up, probably boinking Catherine Zeta Jones.
Oh, who am I kidding. She’s probably changing his Depends®!
Always follow the links…
From the article that was mischaracterized by the Dvorak headline:
Spence cautioned he could not rule out a small risk of a more general financial meltdown.
“The main immediate risk on Wall Street is a complete credit lockup, resulting from damaged balance sheets, lack of transparency and visibility and a downward spiral based on those ingredients. This has started to happen a couple of times and been averted with quick action by the Fed, the Treasury, and other central banks,” he said.
“If this were to happen there would be a very deep recession that would adversely affect the economy broadly and it would show up in reduced demand. It would spill over into the global economy, differentially depending on the region but very broadly. Electronics output and sales would slow dramatically but not uniquely,” he said.
#22 bobbo:
You’re right that it’s not a good idea to just stop paying out Social Security benefits to people who already rely on them. We have a responsibility to make sure those people get what they were promised.
But I don’t think it’s a secret that many people paying into the system will never get any of the money, the way the program is currently managed. Based on anecdotal evidence, I’d guess that most low-income families, particularly young ones, don’t get any Social Security benefits – maybe welfare, but that’s a different program, right? If so, then that money shouldn’t even be coming out of the “Social Security fund” anyways.
So the solution would have to include some cut-off age, probably something in the 40s (younger than the boomers), where we officially end the program, yet continue to make legacy payments to the people who have planned their retirement expecting it. I’m not sure if we could eliminate the tax completely, but we might be able to significantly reduce it.
I don’t think “bringing people into the system” is something to aim for. I just wonder how many of these people wouldn’t need a handout if they got to keep all of their wages.
As far as raising the minimum wage, isn’t the number like, less than 10% of all people make minimum? And aren’t most of those people kids? If that’s the case, then wouldn’t raising the minimum wage simply raise the cost of necessary goods, like groceries and food?
The biggest reason social security was activated was to stop destitute elderly from happening and to give everyone a cushion so that they -may- not have to work their entire lives and end their lives in some bit of dignity.
It changed over time, but that’s the basic value behind it. It’s not supposed to be a free ride, and you are supposed to have worked (you do read the statements they send you every year or two, right?)
Giving people that 10 or 15% back every year will only help in the short term. In the long term, they will be far worse off when they have to continue working until they are 90 because they never have savings and there is no government help at the end.
The gimmee now mentality is hard for humans to resist, and sometimes you have to have the government step in and force them to plan ahead.
Even if we have a good head on our shoulders, things can happen and you still might end up at 70 with nothing but that monthly check. That 15% out of your paycheck is insurance, pure and simple. Hopefully you don’t have to use it.
“It’s not supposed to be a free ride, and you are supposed to have worked”
agreed but all of us know one or more people who are collecting and never worked. This is what is wrong about SS. The people who work and pay into the sysem are the last to collect it.
#25–brm==you are mixing in 2-3 different issues making discussion difficult. The flavor of your comments is a cut and past of conservative talking points against the concept of minimum wage or even of a social safety net.
It looks like every good idea gets corrupted by Congress overapplying something that is supposed to be earned or at least contributory and over time Congress gives it away for free. Still, personally, when I get Soc Sec I will feel I earned it as I have paid into it. If I would stop drinking beer, I should even get more out than I paid in. Nothing wrong with that given the years I worked for minimum wage.
The problem is CORPS are thinking they CANT make a mistake if the GOV pulls them OUT.
This is as BAD as having a DRUGGIE as your child..
you WANT to help…but you CANT..
YOU DONT..
They have to LEARN the lesson, or they will repeat it. OVER AND OVER AND OVER..
Very good comrades. I always enjoy hearing the academia telling citizens how good things are. Very nice distraction from focusing on real problems, It helps when they have no reponsibilities. They can say anything and later government can deny.. Very smart way to deal with problems. You are making good progress in learning how things are done here in Moscow. Perhaps, someday you can be president of russia, which with me as Premier, means you too have no responsibility. Just another tool to promote propaganda.
I feel *so* much better now…what our economy *really* needs is the Faveo Freedom Bra!
>if you raise minimum wages then fewer employees can be employed, but that has never happened before.
Yea, the laws of economics don’t mean anything.
I always buy more of something when the price goes up.
The bottom line is that the present housing and credit crises will lead to a downturn in the U.S. economy. It will be painful and everyone will be touched by it in some way. This won’t kill the U.S. economy…it will just feel that way.