Let's talk about "growth" a little more. A Harvard Econ professor: "...the median family is in worse shape than it was in the late 1990s."
Worse? What is it that is better or worse? Where does the idea of some kind of alarm come into this? Where do these values come from? Why the implication of a horrible downward slide? Why is money supposed to be all we want?
What exactly would so terrible about stabilizing at the wealth level of 1996?
In other words, why is there a value structure that comes into it? Why does 2011 have to be better or worse than 1996?
So we have "slipped" to 1996 ----- Wow. If we just stabilized there we as a country would be fine. Every additional item should be sent to countries where they actually need it. What is that? ----- elasticity or something?
The level of wealth needed to support a median family was achieved let us say in 1965. But let us suppose that we revert to, say 1975. That is fine. We don't need more that that. There is no problem. You cannot have an argument with this. Basic human needs (for this country) were satisfied by 1965 for sure.
I think this Harvard economist is just jibber-jabbering back to the public what they programmed him with in the first place. (He stays on the same assumptive level he was programmed with. In the beginning he was supposed to talk about whether we are "better or worse" and that is what he does. He is like any serf; he just does what he's told.)
If I could have peace on earth, I'd be perfectly willing to live at the level of 1996, or 1975, or even 1965. For you spoiled babies, I'll give you 1975. OK? Can you live with that?