Some of the best films are structured such that audiences are compelled to consider the same story from different angles. That's often achieved via a collage of seemingly unrelated vignettes which eventually overlap -- a serendipitous quilt from a disparate patchwork. The tale of America as a society of haves and have-nots is especially amenable to multi-dimensional consideration from the vantage point of different economic actors, whose otherwise divergent fortunes invariably and accidentally
Subscribe or log in to read the rest of this content.

6 thoughts on “Crash

  1. Symbiotic relationships are some of the healthiest.

    As for your reference to cinema-I immediately thought of Woody Allen and my all time favorite movie of his, “Midnight in Paris”.

  2. A rich irony here (pun intended). Trickle down is the economic argument that the way to best lift up the have-nots is to enrich the haves. As you have pointed out, the haves don’t spend like the have-nots so trickle down doesn’t really work. However, the have-nots, while not enriched by their 1% fellows, can set in motion the machinery to unrich the haves. I really do love the way all this stuff works. It’s a shame that this feedback loop doesn’t seem to inflict sufficient pain for the rich to finally get the message.

  3. “Falling stocks would weigh on the fortunes of the richest households, presumably compelling some to at least consider capitulating, a process that could drive additional downside, in a spiral.”

    Yet wouldn’t some of the savvier of the richest households BTD at fire sale prices from everyone else and increase their share of the market even further?

  4. H-Man, the power of the poor is the spending for GDP. As you noted, the rich can stop spending but not the poor when it comes to necessities. But many of those necessities become less necessary for the poor, not good for GDP.

Speak your mind

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

NEWSROOM crewneck & prints