I know a British marxist-inspired economist who believes that economic booms and recessions are ultimately driven by the amount of (corporate) investments, and that corporate investments are mostly driven by expected profit returns.
He criticises what he sees as "the Keynesian school" that believes that consumer spending is driving force of recessions. He doesn't mention it, but I believe in his view consumer spending only has impact to the degree it influences expected profitability.
Thanks for the comment! My own views differ substantially from the Marxists, but I would agree that corporate investments are part of the story. But I also think that corporate investments are influenced by many factors and are not an independent variable.
That said, it is always nice to see the Keynesians take it on the chin. I do think they offer some worthwhile insights, but do not buy their worldview at all.
I didn't know boo about the Austrians and appreciate how you've presented the information and your own thoughts! I do know that "idealized systems" pose problems in all disciplines, and it seems to me that your skepticism is warranted and based in evidence. On a more mundane note, I noticed that good ole Algonquin had a surge today and wondered if it's a mere, idealized blip. Another possible idealized move up came from STHO, which some of us poor souls remain invested in (but only a small tranche). I know these companies aren't in your portfolio, but I believe that at least one was, sometime in the ancient past. Maybe other members have opinions they'll share.
I have not tried to figure out Algonquin, but have too much background in STHO. Seems to me that there is a good chance it pays off quite well but that could take some years.
Thanks, Paul, for these thoughts. It's helpful to know you think there's a good chance STHO pays off eventually. I'd decided to keep holding it, especially since it's a very small investment. Some years ago, I owned a medium-sized investment in a Chinese stock of some sort; after 14 years of watching it stagnate with no movement except downward to a pittance, I was convinced it was permanent trash. I sold for a few hundred dollars just to make it disappear. A few years passed, and I happened to notice its name somewhere and looked it up. Less than a week after I sold it, it shot up into the stratosphere. Had I held it a few more days, I would have been $35,000 richer, instead of $6,000 poorer. Stranger still, it only remained at that height for a month, then dropped like lead. On the other hand, there are the ones I held until bankruptcy. So, it's hard to draw any conclusions, except not to idealize any single system. I'm learning so much from your teaching at 71.
I know a British marxist-inspired economist who believes that economic booms and recessions are ultimately driven by the amount of (corporate) investments, and that corporate investments are mostly driven by expected profit returns.
He criticises what he sees as "the Keynesian school" that believes that consumer spending is driving force of recessions. He doesn't mention it, but I believe in his view consumer spending only has impact to the degree it influences expected profitability.
Thanks for the comment! My own views differ substantially from the Marxists, but I would agree that corporate investments are part of the story. But I also think that corporate investments are influenced by many factors and are not an independent variable.
That said, it is always nice to see the Keynesians take it on the chin. I do think they offer some worthwhile insights, but do not buy their worldview at all.
I didn't know boo about the Austrians and appreciate how you've presented the information and your own thoughts! I do know that "idealized systems" pose problems in all disciplines, and it seems to me that your skepticism is warranted and based in evidence. On a more mundane note, I noticed that good ole Algonquin had a surge today and wondered if it's a mere, idealized blip. Another possible idealized move up came from STHO, which some of us poor souls remain invested in (but only a small tranche). I know these companies aren't in your portfolio, but I believe that at least one was, sometime in the ancient past. Maybe other members have opinions they'll share.
I have not tried to figure out Algonquin, but have too much background in STHO. Seems to me that there is a good chance it pays off quite well but that could take some years.
Thanks, Paul, for these thoughts. It's helpful to know you think there's a good chance STHO pays off eventually. I'd decided to keep holding it, especially since it's a very small investment. Some years ago, I owned a medium-sized investment in a Chinese stock of some sort; after 14 years of watching it stagnate with no movement except downward to a pittance, I was convinced it was permanent trash. I sold for a few hundred dollars just to make it disappear. A few years passed, and I happened to notice its name somewhere and looked it up. Less than a week after I sold it, it shot up into the stratosphere. Had I held it a few more days, I would have been $35,000 richer, instead of $6,000 poorer. Stranger still, it only remained at that height for a month, then dropped like lead. On the other hand, there are the ones I held until bankruptcy. So, it's hard to draw any conclusions, except not to idealize any single system. I'm learning so much from your teaching at 71.
Lots of learning here too. Happy to share it.