>If you were using a computer 25 years ago, what about then? Made in USA or China?
I don't know. You tell me. You also didn't answer the question. Do you think the US economy shrank by 50% or not?
I see what you're getting at though. Basically, "since everything's made in china rather than the US, it's totally feasible that the US economy shrunk by 50% over 25 years". However, that's flawed for two reasons:
1. "manufacturing" =/= "the economy". As you might know, the US is primarily a services based economy. A quick google search says it accounts for 67% of the GDP.
2. raw gdp only dipped 3.6% in the 2008 recession. 50% is 14x that. I find it hard to believe that our economy experienced fourteen Great Recessions and never recovered.
>Last time I was at LAX 10 years ago it looked worse than a third world country airport
That's not hard to believe, considering that many oil states are loaded with cash and are "third world" (in the truest sense of the word). The third world is also filled with dictators who can fund glamor projects without taxpayer objection. See also: north korea.
> I did answer your question with another question, but that was perhaps too subtle for you.
that's called "dodging the question"
>Try to see the bigger picture. Broadly, over the last 25 years, much of the US economy has shifted overseas, not only to China. US infrastructure is crumbling.
The problem is that the points you bring up don't have any numbers behind them, so it's impossible to know their actual impact. You have two points. I can bring up two counter-points: growth of tech companies, and the fracking boom. I guess we're even now and US is alright?
>Yes the US is a "service based" economy, meaning arguably fake bullshit jobs
elaborate on this. Just because someone isn't working in a widget factory or a coal mine, it means that his job is bullshit? If companies are willing to pay people to do something, there's a very good chance that they're adding value, even if they're not participating in production directly.
>It's a fake foundation for an economy where everyone is living on borrowed money, due for a major correction, a massive shock causing the house of cards to collapse.
Well if you check household debt to gdp ratio you'll see that it's significantly deflated since 2008, so I guess we're actually fine then?
>The inflation adjusted index price is one piece of evidence that the US economy may be due for a severe correction, possibly worse than 2008.
Dunno man, if your "inflation adjusted" GDP numbers are to be believed, then the correction has already happened (or is still underway). A 10%-20% is generally considered to be the range for a "correction".
OK, wait. The original claim was that the inflation-adjusted SP500 has never recovered to its level in 2000. I said that M3 wasn't actually a measure of inflation. You responded that 1) yes it was (upthread a ways), and 2) "The inflation adjusted index price is one piece of evidence that the US economy may be due for a severe correction, possibly worse than 2008."
But if the SP500 (measured by M3) is below where it was in 2000 by a factor of 3 or so (eyeballing the chart in the article), and if M3 is a valid measure of inflation, then how is the inflation-adjusted index price saying that we're due for a severe correction?
You’re not considering the velocity of money in the economy. If a quadrillion dollar coin is printed and locked away in a vault which can only be opened by a formal proof of the Collatz conjecture, would there be any inflation?
