At 1/19/12 11:08 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote:
At 1/19/12 01:35 AM, WallofYawn wrote:
I thought this was obvious. Because if would give Obama the best chance of winning.
Why would I endorse the republican that has the worst chance against him?
I think no matter who goes against him, he'll win, because you know, he's a human, and they're all chimps.
Also, key word there: RECESSION. The 1930s was a depression. This is nowhere near as bad as that, because banks are still afloat, businesses get bail outs, and the unemployment rate is still not as high, compared to the population we have, as opposed to the population and amount of money they had back then.The word Depression was simply an adjective that was used in the 30's instead of the word "Panic" which had been seen as harsher than the more euphemistic word depression. [Take it to mean, "Don't panic, the economy is simply depressed"] but as with all Euphemisms, the word comes to be associated with aspects of the actual object it describes, and so depression became a word for a Recession longer and more deep than any other.
I see. Makes sense. In that case, there isn't widespread panic. I mean, people are still pretty calm considering the circumstances.
The word recession is a text book term referring to two consecutive terms of negative GDP Growth. By Text book standards, the recession ended in the summer of 2009, that's nearly three years ago.
Since the economy of the early 20th century was far more goods-producing based, much of layoffs businesses were caused by a combination of the failures of Unit banking, the Tariff of 1930, tax increases [I'm not sure if they offset or were less than the actual spending increases] during the Hoover Administration, as well as pressure by said administration on businesses not to Cut wages. [I.e. to fire people rather than pay them less]
Today's economy is kept afloat by debt based consumption. Americans, and their Government, buy things on credit, and it is measured as growth. It is entirely dependent on the confidence in the value of the dollar.
Why bother mentioning this? Because the economy of the 1920's was, despite being lead off track from a boom, more structurally sound than the economy today.
Yea, this is all true. I mean, shit, if we had an economy like the 1920s, in today's world, shit would be off the hook. I mean, I guess you could say the 90s was a bit of resurgence, but nothing compared to the 20s.
The crash of 1929 itself was not the worst financial panic in US History, but the unusual response made it that much worse. Today's economy has the appearance of strength only because of factors which, mathematically cannot exist for much longer. When The US Government and US Citizens are no longer able to siphon credit from other places, the part of GDP that is represented by that consumption will disappear. When Americans can't buy on credit, the service sector will implode with it.
Yea, I never liked the idea of that whole credit idea. I mean, it works if say, I wanna buy shit, but economically, that shit is unstable. We need to go back to using gold, or something physical.(I understand even gold has no intrinsic value but what we give it, but it's far more stable) I mean, that is, if that is even possible.
That moment will come probably sometime after this election. The US Dollar tends to strengthen any time fears about Europe arise. Attention will shift back to the US at some point.
There are other things that can be said about comparing 1930's to today, notably that methods of national accounting have changed, always to the benefit of court apologists. However the point of my mentioning this is is Undoing bad policy in the late 20's and early 30's might have brought a quick recovery. Today, it's too late. A Mitt Romney, Gingrich, or Santorum could not engineer a recovery even if they knew what to do to make it happen. Paul grasps what would need to be done to fix the problem but doing it wouldd still entail a recession, and as president would not have enough clout to solve the problems himself.
Well, yea, his idea of abandoning the credit system is a good idea...his ideas on the role of the fed. though don't make me very enthusiastic. I understand that it's a big bubble, though, and some day this bubble is going to pop, and it's perhaps far too late to fix it.
Obama, like Romney, seems almost entirely interested in using recession economics to reward his campaign contributors and enrich those who do business with the Government. They bought their power with other people's money, and those people will expect a return on their investment.
Yea, I never said Obama wasn't an asshole. He is a typical politician, only slightly less annoying or two faced than some others. He still uses typical tactics, like any other politician. People expected him to not be like a politician. He was expected to be like some black JFK, but even JFK was still a politician. The only radical in the group is Ron Paul, and perhaps too radical at that.
Since we're all going to die anyway, metaphorically speaking. I would rather have Obama as president when it happens than someone else. Particularly because second term incumbents have no accountability to anyone, I'll be interested to see just how much damage Obama can do to the economy and to civil liberties when
I don't hold in very high regard people who base their election preferences on who they think can 'fix the problems' -- It's even worse when people think this way after looking at a Candidate's face and saying to themselves, that they can "Imagine them as looking smart and being able to fix problems"
Well my reason wasn't so much "who can fix it" as "who is less likely to make it significantly worse." I mean, at least Obama tried to undo some of the shit Bush put in place. Most of the other candidates want to return to those failed economic policies we call Reaganomics.
I ignored the rest of your statements because I can't fit it into the actual discussion about Mitt Romney. But don't insult my intelligence by giving me a middle school rendition of the great depression,
I know what the court historians have to say about the time, and also knowing why their narratives are misleading at best, and propaganda at worst. Feel free to make a separate topic on the issue.
I might do that. I never claimed to be an expert on the shit, though. I was just attempting a retort, of sorts...I guess. You have a better grasp of the facts than I thought, though. But riddle me this:
Is there not ANYTHING that we can do? I mean, if it's as bad as you say, and this economy is doomed to fail, what's that mean for folks like me, who are in their 20s and have little job experience? If it is gonna be worse than in the 30s, shit is gonna be a LOT harder.