The greater depression?

[Tails]

Well i was listening to 700WLW today (they host the reds and bangals games) and my mom said that the guy who does stocks said that two well known banks 5/3rd and national (not sure on the last one) might be going out of business, and that June 2008 was the worst month even worse than the great depression. Do you guys think we are in a great depression? If not do you think we are starting to go into a depression?

[somedude21]

Yes we are, what with the stocks and gas prices these days.

[Timber Wolf]

No, i think it's just correction from an economy that grew faster than it could handle, and over-inflation from an inbalance in distrobution in monetary units...in our case the dollar....

[Dudebro]

We may be in a recession but I wouldn't call it a great depression. We're not having the same problems they did back then. During the depression times were alot harder, the fact that you can walk down the street and get a job proves we're not in a great depression. I wouldn't be shocked if it happened soon though.

[Kugyince]

We are not in a depression nor a recession. To be in a recession the nation would have to have negative growth percentage in its GPD for two or more consecutive quarters. (Resource = Wikipedia)

Last quarter the US gained in its GPD. By a very small margin but it was still a positive gain. (Resource = Bureau of Business Research, Ball State University)

Yes, our economic growth has slowed dramatically. But our economy is still growing.

Unless Tails was referring to listening to a station that hosts Bengals games. That would be greatly depressing I'd imagine.

[Dudebro]

Originally Posted by Tenser

Unless Tails was referring to listening to a station that hosts Bengals games. That would be greatly depressing I'd imagine.

We really do need a laughing smilely(is that even a word?).

But yeah I agree Tenser, we may be almost breaking even as a country but we're no where near the great depression. I'll admit the economy seems messed up and there is alot of people out of work but it's a blip on the radar compared to the late 20s to mid 30s.

[david man45]

USA fails= global depression maybe? With the whole trading buisness. Germany though is doing pretty good.

[Bsmoke]

Originally Posted by Tails

... and that June 2008 was the worst month even worse than the great depression. Do you guys think we are in a great depression? If not do you think we are starting to go into a depression?

David was right about not being in a depression/recession right now, and what was in the news was that June 2008 was the worst month for the NYSE since the great depression. That fact doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot by itself either, since the NYSE is merely a shareholders' perspective of a handful of major companies. Wait until the jobless rate reaches the rates of the great depression, then you can worry (~25% at its highest, at least according to the statistics).

[david man45]

Tails you mean.

[oasis]

just because its worse numbers than the great depression does not mean that its worse than that time as dudebro said there are still jobs even if people dont want to work them.

also back then the stock market crashed all the crops dried up and there were huge dust storms.

we are nearly at a ressesion but things are going to get better

also that guy should not be talking about banks going out of buisness simply because thats insider information and people go to jail for that stuff. alls we need to do is find out what bank is buying them buy stock and we will make a bundle when the economy goes back up...

I would get fired for even mentioning what my bank does. ;D

[Timber Wolf]

wow, thats kinda sad oasis, the getting fired part, but, even with the Great Depression, it was worse in Europe(Central Powers, anyone?) and they've managed to get back up....
I really think a Marxist/Platonian view on society might help, true communism could solve some of the economic problems with the world, though the oblious flaws are
1. a dictatorship of the prolitariat would fall quickly as people bide for power
2. Greed and monetary gain drive economy
3. a collapse in society would take place before a rise to an ideal society
4. As in Plato's "Republic" the name of the city is Utopia, meaning "no place" saying it would never happen
there are a few other's I'm not going to list just because i think I've made my point, but does anyone else see the pro's in a true communist
society?

[Kugyince]

You make excellent points Timber Wolf. And I soundly agree with your thoughts on some of the flaws of communism. I've always leaned more towards a democratic quasi-socialism. Meaning that the democratic process stay largely in tact with a few minor but needed tweaks and an economic structure where fundamental infrastructures are owned and operated by the government. The idea being the government would own and operate competitive businesses in certain fields such as communications, insurance, health care and resource management.

I've always given out United States Postal Service as an example of this. The USPS provides excellent jobs to society, provides an invaluable service to the country and actively competes with private industries such as UPS and FedEx. All while still allowing growth through capitalistic incentives.

I honestly don't think major oil companies would be raking in their record setting profits every year if they has to compete with a US owned and operated company in the same field. Of course, this is all coming from an active member of the Socialist Worker's Party.

[Kong]

I agree with the USPS analogy. I would like to see something similar to the post office for

1. public mass transit (yes we have one but it is horrible)
2. super fast continental rail system
3. wireless ubiquitous super high speed Internet.
4. ivy league quality full range online college courses.

I think the rail system first two should be ran as non-profits meaning very low fees. The last two should be free.

These items are all very expensive to start but relatively cheap to maintain. Just like roads and power and telephone lines it makes sense for the American people to pool their tax money together and decide that these things significantly improve the our collective lives. Probably a couple weeks worth of war would pay for all of these items combined.

[oasis]

you guys are talking about in the perfect world

yes these things should happen

but the problem is that our tax money is not going to anything good. its going to pay off people and fuel the goverments greed and salery. I mean does the president of the USA need 300k per year salary the dude is president he gets everything handed to him do you think he pays for anything??

so why is 300k of our tax money going into his pocket for no reason.

and for that matter do we even need a president we have congress who vote on matters then it goes to him for final aproval.

[Kong]

I am not talking about the perfect world. All of these things are well within our reach.

1. Public transit system. We had a good one a hundred years ago (GM bought it from the government and then dismantled it to create more car sales). Other countries have a great systems. We have a system in place. We just have to expand on it. If oil prices keep rising and if global warming gets harder to hide then we will upgrade our system.
2. Super Fast Interstate Rail System. Other countries have these. America recently had a plan to create one but it was dropped. We could still do it.
3. Free Ubiquitous Wireless Internet System. Google recently bid 4.6 billion dollars to purchase the old UHF TV air waves. If they had won they would have given free wireless Internet to America. Verizon out bid them. How come the American tax payers couldn't back Google's play and give free Internet everywhere for everybody.
4. MIT started giving away several of their online courses a few years ago. Since then several other schools have followed suit. I can see no argument as to why the government should not sponsor this initiative. It is an investment into the future that will pay for itself many times over.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_OpenCourseWare

[oasis]

I completely agree with you and im not argueing with you but why did these things fail

1. Greed
2. Greed
3. Greed
4. not sure acctually sounds like it was a good idea

1. You said it yourself Gm bought the mass transit to sell more cars
2. Gov. does not want to spend that kind of money
3. Verison bought it because they would loose out on the internet sales.
4. hmm I like it The official site = 1800 courses

[Blue Shoe 2]

i don't really live in america so its not a problem for me, but my relatives live there so, if depression, they come to me.

With all of the media focus on the American Economy at the moment, I stumbled across this thread and thought it'd be a good idea to put it back out there to see what everybody's opinion is.

My humble, largely uninformed opinion is that there is no need for all of the fear and panic we are seeing and that the market will eventually bounce back.

However, one thing that that really pissed me off was that it seemed like Congress was playing Election Year Politics last weekend in regards to drafting the "Bailout" Plan. McCain's play might have been genuine, but he should have known that it would be viewed as a political ploy. I still can't understand and have yet to hear it explained, but I can't understand why Pelosi was unable to convince a dozen of her Democratic colleagues to vote for the original bill.

Thoughts?

[Dudebro]

Actually from what I hear it was the republicans who failed to get the votes for the first bailout. Which means McCain is a blowhard, of course everything he's doing is a political ploy.
Doesn't really matter. If McCain got elected we'd be screwed anyways with that nutjob first lady around.

[count100]

personally i dont see what is great about either candidate at all neither one has yet to say anything that would make me want to vote on either one. maybe someone can give me some incite to why either one is a good candidate to elect as president.

[Kugyince]

Actually the system is quite easy to fix. It just wont be fixed properly because of greed. It would only require three strategic strikes.

Step 1: Democratic quasi-socialism.

Originally Posted by Tenser

Meaning that the democratic process stay largely in tact with a few minor but needed tweaks and an economic structure where fundamental infrastructures are owned and operated by the government. The idea being the government would own and operate competitive businesses in certain fields such as communications, insurance, health care and resource management.

I've always given out United States Postal Service as an example of this. The USPS provides excellent jobs to society, provides an invaluable service to the country and actively competes with private industries such as UPS and FedEx. All while still allowing growth through capitalistic incentives.

I honestly don't think major oil companies would be raking in their record setting profits every year if they has to compete with a US owned and operated company in the same field.

Step 2: Semi-Isolationism via active tariffs
America needs to start levying tariffs on goods coming within the US from other countries. The tariffs so be percentage based upon which country they are coming from and that country's minimum wage earnings versus ours. Thus causing it to be less profitable to move large businesses overseas where cheap labor can be had. This will not only allow American companies to compete profitably but also will encourage companies to stay within the US to avoid costly shipping and encourage other countries to raise there minimum wage allowances.

Step 3: Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security
A) Eliminate the 200k/yr tax ceiling on social security tax. (Currently the more money you make over 200,000 a year, the smaller percentage you pay in social security.)
B) Eliminate the ability for the government to borrow money from the SS coffers. (Currently government "borrows" money from SS to fund other programs. This borrowed money is never replaced. The money vault for SS is basically filled with G'ment IOUs. If money wasn't taken out to fund other programs, SS would actually have a surplus!)
C) Eliminate the 60+ age restriction to qualify for Medicaid. Now with a huge funding from the first two steps, the government may provide, very basic, simple health care for all citizens. People may still go out and purchase extra private or company based health care for extra coverage. This will take a VERY large burden off of employers while providing at least the basics for every citizen.

Originally Posted by Dudebro

Actually from what I hear it was the republicans who failed to get the votes for the first bailout. Which means McCain is a blowhard, of course everything he's doing is a political ploy.
Doesn't really matter. If McCain got elected we'd be screwed anyways with that nutjob first lady around.

While I believe only 60 House Republicans voted for the first draft of the Bailout Plan, there were 95 House Democrats who rejected it. A swing of 12 votes in favor would have allowed for the Bill to move to the Senate. My cynical nature leads me to believe that there could have been partisan politics being played there in order to undermine McCain's play. And what's so 'nutjob' about Palin? I'm curious what about her displeases you.


@Tenser: I don't know how you feel, but I believe the Bailout Plan is a step towards your preferred Democratic Quasi-Socialist State. Personally, I wouldn't trust the government to take care of my dog. Of course, I'm being facetious, but for all of the positives of nationalized health care/insurance/communications/etc., there are inherent dangers associated with each. However, if Obama is elected and he is flanked by a Democratic Congress I see the U.S. moving towards what you describe.

[Kugyince]

@Billy: That's why I use the USPS as an example. There still exists FedEx, UPS, DHL, etc... You're allowed to freely choose between any of them that you wish. If you still wanted to fill up your car at Citgo or Exxon instead of say USOC (US Oil Company) that's your option. If you wish to purchase extra health care coverage from the private sector or your company, that's your choice. The idea is not to force you into using government owned companies but to let the government own and operate companies fairly alongside the private sector.

I would also say that I'm not a Palin fan either. She allows her religious beliefs to affect her politics too much for my taste. I'm not saying that she's not suppose to or shouldn't, I'm just saying the I prefer someone who at least attempts to separate their morals from their ethics.

[Dudebro]

Originally Posted by Billy

And what's so 'nutjob' about Palin? I'm curious what about her displeases you.

Originally Posted by Tenser

I would also say that I'm not a Palin fan either. She allows her religious beliefs to affect her politics too much for my taste.

That goes for me too. She's a terrible person to lead this country. We're not like the middle east where religious leaders rule the people. That's the stone age.

I'm not saying that she's not suppose to or shouldn't, I'm just saying the I prefer someone who at least attempts to separate their morals from their ethics.

I'm saying she's not supposed to. Religion has NO place in the government. Besides she has some scary beliefs in my opinion. I don't want a hardcore religous person leading one of the most important countries in the world. Sorry that might offend some of you but I think that should disqualify her from office.

About the bailout thing. No point in placing blame, both sides are mostly greedy liars.

[Kugyince]

I think you're letting your bias against religion affect your judgment Dudebro. The citizens are allowed to choose who they wish to represent them. This is how a democracy works. Claiming that someone may not run for political office because they follow Christianity too strongly is just as bad in my eyes as saying someone can not run because they don't follow Christianity enough.

Palin has the right to run for office just as much as you have the right to not vote for her.

(My apologies if I misread the context of "disqualify her from office")