The American Dream, RIP?

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21586581-economist-asks-provocative-questions-about-future-social-mobility-american

 

The economist Tyler Cowen has made some jarring predictions regarding the middle and lower classes in his book "Average is Over". In it, he talks much about the economic inequity of today and how technology and the mastery of it could lead to an elite group of 10-15% of citizens being wealthy and stable while the rest writhe in low wage jobs and poverty. He claims that those who capitalize on advancing technologies will leave those behind and there will be a collapse of middling jobs, which is what he meant by the American Dream.

I interpreted Mr. Cowen's understanding of the American dream as having a stable, middle class job that can support a family and live a relatively comfortable life. This must be some deviation of the original meaning of the American Dream, because in truth it's been dead since the end of the modern era.  This book sounds like a load of bologna if you ask me. He states that young people will struggle in labor markets that favor conscientiousness over muscle due to the rapid progression of technology. I don't know why he assumes that an average person can't capitalize on these opportunities as well as the rich. It seems to me he makes the average person seem less smart than they actually are. Perhaps I'm missing something here, but he seems to equate the death of the American Dream to the loss of a middle class. Even suggesting that 85% of the population will be labeled lower class is ludicrous. He doesn't seem to give reasons as to why he says the middle class won't be able to keep up with tech. In my opinion, this book shouldn't even be taken seriously at all. Especially in regards to economics. 

When the Treasury Runs Out of Cash

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/08/when-the-treasury-runs-out-of-cash/?ref=economy&_r=0

 

 This article spotlighted the U.S.'s debt ceiling problem. This October, the U.S. will be required to pay large sums of money towards things like social security and veteran funds. Because of this, many republicans have voiced concern about the debt ceiling. They've given Obama two options: either raise the debt ceiling, or ignore it by way of the president invoking the Constitution to override the debt limit and rack up more debt. Section 4 in the 14th amendment permits such an action. Most expert analysts suggest these are the two choice Obama has in the matter, since the Treasury is incredibly low on funds as of late.

I personally don't think that we're going to go with the raising the debt ceiling option. By not paying the debts on the allocated days said in the article, congress is essentially breaking a law. We can't have that however, so they suggest the president just overrides it and increase the debt we have again. The article also stated that should we take this option, the Treasury would be in default. This means that financial securities from the treasury can't be traded which would cause huge economic problems.

The U.S. is obviously notorious for its huge debt, and once again, we're proving that we can't handle having large sums of money at our disposal. I don't know what we've been spending the treasury's money on, but now we don't have enough to clean up our mess (once again). Eventually this debt is going to become so large it'll probably cause some sort of economic collapse. Congress is so blinded by their own squabbles that they don't have a care in the world for the others they've damaged from this debt. What's the solution? Their solution is to make the debt ceiling larger so we can rack up even more debt. The other is to use good ol' President Obama to use his power to essentially ignore it. This debt is like a tumor that won't stop growing, yet it is ignored. Sooner or later the tumor's going to cause a stroke, and I'm hoping to not take the full brunt of something I'm completely incapable of stopping if you feel me.