You are mostly right. One fundamental problem we've had ever since Reagan is that our definition of "strong economy" is warped. An economy that does not benefit the middle and lower classes isn't a strong economy, no matter how the stock market performs.
You are mostly right. One fundamental problem we've had ever since Reagan is that our definition of "strong economy" is warped. An economy that does not benefit the middle and lower classes isn't a strong economy, no matter how the stock market performs.
There is another aspect: a lot of the stock market rise is artificial. Today, companies don't pay dividends any more, but instead do stock buybacks. Investors then get paid back by a rising stock price (which gets better tax treatment), but a side effect is that, well, stock prices are rising without an underlying cause.
You are mostly right. One fundamental problem we've had ever since Reagan is that our definition of "strong economy" is warped. An economy that does not benefit the middle and lower classes isn't a strong economy, no matter how the stock market performs.
I agree. A strong stock market does not help anyone but corporations’ bottom line, along with upper-class investors.
There is another aspect: a lot of the stock market rise is artificial. Today, companies don't pay dividends any more, but instead do stock buybacks. Investors then get paid back by a rising stock price (which gets better tax treatment), but a side effect is that, well, stock prices are rising without an underlying cause.