Maxprop wrote:
You seem to imply that money is an autonomous medium, moving irrespective of
the whims and wishes of the humans that handle it. Interesting.

Not at all. Just referring to an economic concept. Money doesn't do
anything by itself, obviously. Equally obvious is that not everybody
does the same thing with their money: some spend it one place, some
spend it another, some save more, some save less.

What I am saying is that with the tremendous increase in U.S. gov't
spending, and the continued economic doldrums, it looks like the people
who received that money did not go out and spend it in ways that help
the U.S. economy.

As an aside, it seems likely to me that much of the money handed out for
the Iraq war is now being spent by overseas corporate types... it will
get back to us, eventually, but in the meantime it has done us little
(if any) good... economically and other ways...


The stock market is only a tiny portion of the overall economy. And it
is a follower, not a leader, in the overall economy.


In theoretical economic parlance, yes. But the activity of the markets
(global, not just the US) have a huge impact upon the decisions and actions
of those who control vast amounts of money. The markets aren't strictly
followers, rather they are part of a larger symbiotic relationship, replete
with feedback loops.

Unfortunately the feedback loop is mostly hysteresis.

As a market for capital, the stock market is important to the economy.
In any other way, it is parasitic.

DSK