Fed minutes reveal officials worried about 'severe' recession

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

By JEANNINE AVERSA, AP Economics Writer 10 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Worries about a deep recession — not a shallow one — drove Federal Reserve policymakers to slash a key interest rate last month, meeting minutes show.

Even as the Fed battled in almost unprecedented fashion to stem a widening credit and housing slump, some members fretted over the possibility of a "prolonged and severe" economic downturn. It was in that environment that they voted — with two dissents — to cut its most important interest rate by three-quarters of a percentage point to 2.25 percent. That action capped the most aggressive Fed intervention in a quarter-century.

Some Fed policymakers thought that such a widening recession could not be ruled out given the "further restriction of credit availability and ongoing weakness in the housing market," according to the meeting minutes that were made public Tuesday.

Two Fed members — Charles Plosser, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, and Richard Fisher, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas — opposed such a big rate reduction, however. They favored a smaller cut because of concerns about a potential inflation flare-up. It was a crack in the mostly unified front that the fed often has projected to the public.

The minutes of the closed-door March meeting underscored the economic cross-currents pulling at Fed policymakers.

"With the uncertainties in the outlook for both economic activity and inflation elevated, members noted that appropriately calibrating the stance of (interest-rate) policy was difficult," the minutes stated.

On the one hand, the Fed has been urgently moving to prevent the trio of economic woes — housing, credit and financial_ from plunging the country into a deep recession. On the other hand, with soaring energy prices and high food costs, policymakers realize that they can't afford to let inflation get out of control, either.

Even with the big interest rate reduction in March, most Fed members saw overall inflation moderating in coming quarters, the minutes said. However, inflation pressures had picked up even as economic growth had weakened, the minutes added, suggesting that uncertainty clouded the inflation outlook.

Plosser and Fisher — the two who opposed the hefty three-quarter-point reduction in March — were "concerned that inflation expectations could potentially become unhinged," according to the minutes. If people, investors and businesses expect prices to rise sharply, they'll act in ways that will make inflation worse. Once inflation takes hold, it is hard to break."

Since last September, the Fed has been cutting rates to shore up the economy. One of the risks of lowering rates is that it can sow the seeds of inflation down the road. To battle inflation, the Fed usually boosts rates.

Against this backdrop, Bernanke, in a congressional appearance last week, didn't tip his hand about the Fed's next move on interest rates. Many economists, however, believe the Fed will lower rates again at its next regularly scheduled meeting on April 29-30, especially in light of the faltering employment market.

The government reported last week that the economy lost jobs for the third month in a row in March. All told, the nation has lost 232,000 jobs in just three months — stark evidence of just how much the employment market has buckled under the weight of the economy's woes.

For the first time, Bernanke last week acknowledged that a recession is possible.

According to the Fed minutes, many members thought "some contraction in economic activity in the first half of 2008 now appeared likely."

The Fed found itself fighting a vicious cycle, where credit problems hurt the economy's outlook which in turns worsens credit problems, the minutes suggested. There was "evidence that an adverse feedback loop was under way," the minutes said.

Besides cutting rates, the Fed has taken a number of unconventional steps recently to ease a dangerous credit crisis.

Under one new program, the Fed has been letting big investment firms borrow super-safe Treasury securities and put up more risky investments, including certain shunned mortgage-backed securities as collateral. The Fed said it would make as much as $200 billion worth of Treasuries available through weekly auctions.

The goal is to make investment houses more inclined to lend to each other. It also is aimed at providing relief to the distressed market for mortgage-linked securities. Questions about their value and dumping of these securities have driven up mortgage rates, aggravating the housing crisis.

Fed policymakers thought the program "could prove useful in preventing an escalation of an unhealthy dynamic" that has gripped credit markets, according to the minutes of a March 10 conference call that led to the creation of the new program.

Separately, in the broadest use of its lending authority since the 1930s, the Fed last month agreed to temporarily let investment firms obtain emergency financing from the Fed, a privilege that previously had been granted only to commercial banks.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080408/ap_on_bi_ge/fed_minutes

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Looks like LoneBolt is going to have to do some digging and find out if any of the members of the Fed have ever done any landscaping work. ;)

[The Lone Bolt]

Looks like LoneBolt is going to have to do some digging and find out if any of the members of the Fed have ever done any landscaping work. ;)

ZZZ...

You keep posting stuff like this that does absolutely nothing to support your's and Mikey's beliefs of "economic armageddon." Even more bizarrely, you keep thumping your chest afterward like you've accomplished something.

Very strange.

[baja]

These are two key elements (Run away inflation & recession) of the perfect storm I have been warning about for over two years now. Toss in a dollar in free fall (soon to come) and the fact we depend on cheap goods & services from the rest of the world to sustain the quality of living for the middle class. Add in a federal debt that is so huge that soon no one will be willing to take on the government paper (what then george). Oh and let's not forget a sick unhealthy nation that has little talent to do anything outside of their particular job description and lets not forget the woefully nutrient deficient food that travels an average of 2,500 miles on fuel that has tripled with no stabilization in sight (won't be getting healthy & energetic any time soon). Do ya think we have a perfect storm brewing here folks.

But not to worry folks baja is just some nut hiding in Mexico, right Wags.

Your government will take care of you don't ya think?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

ZZZ...

You keep posting stuff like this that does absolutely nothing to support your's and Mikey's beliefs of "economic armageddon." Even more bizarrely, you keep thumping your chest afterward like you've accomplished something.

Very strange.

:crazy:

Either your reading comprehension is completely hosed, or you live in the most profound state of denial imaginable.

What part of Fed members using language like "prolonged and severe" economic downturn" don't you get?

[baja]

ZZZ...

You keep posting stuff like this that does absolutely nothing to support your's and Mikey's beliefs of "economic armageddon." Even more bizarrely, you keep thumping your chest afterward like you've accomplished something.

Very strange.

You'll be one of the many that says, " What makes it so bad is there was no warning for this depression, if I had known I could have prepared myself."

[baja]

You will see the day where people will trade their SUV for some seeds and a hoe and a case or two of tuna if they could only find a taker.

[The Lone Bolt]

:crazy:

Either your reading comprehension is completely hosed, or you live in the most profound state of denial imaginable.

What part of Fed members using language like "prolonged and severe" economic downturn" don't you get?

Your article reads:

some members fretted over the possibility of a "prolonged and severe" economic downturn.

Big whoop.

How does that prove that we are absolutely positively headed for an "economic armaggedon" that will "make the Great Depresson look like a picnic"?:kiddingme

[W*GS]

Do ya think we have a perfect storm brewing here folks.

No.

[cutthemdown]

There is a big difference between a recession and the complete economic breakdown Baja and LABF say is coming. It will have to get really really bad before you guys are right. I said it before we will have a couple quarters of recession and economy will be fine by this time next yr.

There isn't going to be ay total meltdown.

[cutthemdown]

You will see the day where people will trade their SUV for some seeds and a hoe and a case or two of tuna if they could only find a taker.

Are you serious?

[cutthemdown]

These are two key elements (Run away inflation & recession) of the perfect storm I have been warning about for over two years now. Toss in a dollar in free fall (soon to come) and the fact we depend on cheap goods & services from the rest of the world to sustain the quality of living for the middle class. Add in a federal debt that is so huge that soon no one will be willing to take on the government paper (what then george). Oh and let's not forget a sick unhealthy nation that has little talent to do anything outside of their particular job description and lets not forget the woefully nutrient deficient food that travels an average of 2,500 miles on fuel that has tripled with no stabilization in sight (won't be getting healthy & energetic any time soon). Do ya think we have a perfect storm brewing here folks.

But not to worry folks baja is just some nut hiding in Mexico, right Wags.

Your government will take care of you don't ya think?

no you are seriously crazy.

[cutthemdown]

ZZZ...

You keep posting stuff like this that does absolutely nothing to support your's and Mikey's beliefs of "economic armageddon." Even more bizarrely, you keep thumping your chest afterward like you've accomplished something.

Very strange.

Strange isn't it.

For one even the feds saying recession isn't the same as Baja and his perfect storm. What they didn't say in that meeting was that we would be trading our SUV in for seeds. I mean cmon this Baja is a total loon. He's crazy. There is a reason he bailed on the USA and has to live in the Boondocks. He just can't function because he is paranoid and delusional.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Your article reads:

Big whoop.

How does that prove that we are absolutely positively headed for an "economic armaggedon" that will "make the Great Depresson look like a picnic"?:kiddingme

More selective attention on your part.

You missed this part:


Even as the Fed battled in almost unprecedented fashion to stem a widening credit and housing slump, some members fretted over the possibility of a "prolonged and severe" economic downturn.

I also posted an article a couple weeks ago that quoted the NBER president predicting the worst economic downturn since WWII.

You initially objected to these kinds of predictions because, in your estimation, they weren't coming from "experts."

Now that I've given you your experts, you are trying to move the goal posts again and/or turn this into a semantic argument. tsk tsk

Anyway, your game is slipping - I expected you to dig up some past landscaping work by at least one member of the Fed by now. ROFL!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

He just can't function because he is paranoid and delusional.

That's funny - the Bush lemmings said the same thing about baja when he predicted the invasion of Iraq would be a big mistake. :welcome:

[cutthemdown]

That's funny - the Bush lemmings said the same thing about baja when he predicted the invasion of Iraq would be a big mistake. :welcome:

only people with no vision see it as a mistake. In the end it will be best for the world to do away with regimes like Iraq. Soon Iran will have to be dealt with. No way McCain doesn't get elected. The stakes are too high. CIA will step in and make sure of it. We can't afford Obama coming in and removing troops from everywhere, surrendering after the troops shed blood to take Iraq. We have to stay, secure the oil, make a bases to attack Iran from.

[cutthemdown]

by the way using teenage smiley faces that wave doesn't make you right.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

only people with no vision see it as a mistake.

:rofl:

Being a BushCo apologist these days means you have to believe >70% of your fellow Americans have no vision, apparently.

[baja]

Strange isn't it.

For one even the feds saying recession isn't the same as Baja and his perfect storm. What they didn't say in that meeting was that we would be trading our SUV in for seeds. I mean cmon this Baja is a total loon. He's crazy. There is a reason he bailed on the USA and has to live in the Boondocks. He just can't function because he is paranoid and delusional.

Thanks, considering the source I know that is a compliment. I confess I do extract a little pleasure knowing when the shiit hits the fan catching your smug ass completely unprepared you will think of me riding out the storm of correction in ease and comfort.

It is not difficult to take a few simple precautions just on the odd chance I am right.

I just returned yesterday from two weeks in San Diego. I had a wonderful time, spent a ton of money only a small % on survival stuff. I bought three large air tight containers and several smaller gallon size air tight containers and 25 #s of wheat berries, golden flax seed and oat groats. I have several hundred dollars worth of heirloom seeds and a water storage and purification system several pounds of sprout seed so in case I am right about this I have the ability to live comfortably for a year or longer but in the mean time I will enjoy the world as it is traveling and playing.

This summer I'm going to a raw food gathering in California and this fall I am going to Italy.

Life is good Cutt and if this is crazy I'm loving it....

[baja]

only people with no vision see it as a mistake. In the end it will be best for the world to do away with regimes like Iraq. Soon Iran will have to be dealt with.<b> No way McCain doesn't get elected. The stakes are too high. CIA will step in and make sure of it. </b>We can't afford Obama coming in and removing troops from everywhere, surrendering after the troops shed blood to take Iraq. We have to stay, secure the oil, make a bases to attack Iran from.

You are right that will likely happen, the sad thing is you (and many others) actually think that is a good thing. That's one of the aspects that make this storm perfect in every regard. it is the arrogant that will be hurt the most. The humble farmer will hardly see a difference.

[baja]

That's funny - the Bush lemmings said the same thing about baja when he predicted the invasion of Iraq would be a big mistake. :welcome:

Too bad patch is banned I'd like to know his take today after all the name calling and slander he heaped on me.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Too bad patch is banned I'd like to know his take today after all the name calling and slander he heaped on me.

His take today would probably be no different than it was five years ago.

To defend a liar you must be a liar.

Remember: They Are Liars

By William Rivers Pitt

"No one is such a liar as the indignant man."
- Friedrich Nietzsche

George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Condoleezza Rice, along with a slew of administration underlings and a revolving-door cavalcade of brass hats from the Pentagon, have been making claims regarding Iraq for many years now.

They claimed Iraq was in possession of 26,000 liters of anthrax, "enough to kill several million people," according to a page on the White House web site titled Disarm Saddam Hussein.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/nationalsecurity/disarm.html

They lied.

They claimed Iraq was in possession of 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin.

They lied.

They claimed Iraq was in possession of 500 tons, which equals 1,000,000 pounds, of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.

They lied.

They claimed Iraq was in possession of nearly 30,000 munitions capable of delivering these agents.

They lied.

They claimed Iraq was in possession of several mobile biological weapons labs.

They lied.

They claimed Iraq was operating an "advanced" nuclear weapons program.

They lied.

They claimed Iraq had been seeking "significant quantities" of uranium from Africa for use in this "advanced" nuclear weapons program.

They lied.

They claimed Iraq attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes "suitable for nuclear weapons."

They lied.

They claimed America needed to invade, overthrow and occupy Iraq in order to remove this menace from our world. "It would take just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country," went the White House line, "to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known."

They lied.

"Simply stated," said Dick Cheney in August of 2002, "there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

Liar.

"Right now," said George W. Bush in September of 2002, "Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of nuclear weapons."

Liar.

"We know for a fact," said White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer in January of 2003, "that there are weapons there."

Liar.

"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction," said Colin Powell in February of 2003, "is determined to make more."

Liar.

"We know where they are," said Donald Rumsfeld in March of 2003. "They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad, and east, south, west and north somewhat."

Liar.

"The Iraqi people understand what this crisis is about," said Paul Wolfowitz in March of 2003. "Like the people of France in the 1940s, they view us as their hoped-for liberator."

Liar.

"No one ever said that we knew precisely where all of these agents were," said Condoleezza Rice in June of 2003, "where they were stored."

Liar.

"I have absolute confidence that there are weapons of mass destruction inside this country," said Gen. Tommy Franks in April of 2003. "Whether we will turn out, at the end of the day, to find them in one of the 2,000 or 3,000 sites we already know about or whether contact with one of these officials who we may come in contact with will tell us, 'Oh, well, there's actually another site,' and we'll find it there, I'm not sure."

Wrong.

"Before the war," said Gen. Michael Hagee in May of 2003, "there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found."

Wrong.

"Given time," said Gen. Richard Myers in May of 2003, "given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction."

Wrong.

"Do I think we're going to find something? Yeah, I kind of do," said Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton in May of 2003, "because I think there's a lot of information out there."

Wrong.

Gen. David Petraeus, commander of US forces in Iraq, is about to give testimony before the Senate regarding the current state of affairs in that battle-savaged country. He is a political general, one of many America has seen and heard over the last five years, one who would leap nude from the Capitol dome before telling the real truth about matters in Iraq ... or who would speak using words fed to him by liars, and thus be wrong.

Remember: they lie. They all lie, from the top man down to the bottom. If their lips are moving, a lie is unfolding. If they say water is wet, get into the shower to make sure.

They lie.

Period.

End of file.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Crunch Time In America: An Interview With Economist Jared Bernstein

How many economists have you read or watched on television in recent years that claimed the economy was performing well while you struggled to make ends meat and keep up with the cost of living? Indeed, until recently a happy talk virus had infected a cabal of conservative plutocrats who preached the virtues of limited regulation, market forces and free trade as wages declined and predatory lenders had a party. It seemed we were hearing conservative politicians and their mouthpieces at the Heritage Foundation or Fox news refer to the economy as “the greatest story never told” at every opportunity.
Now that the housing and credit crisis has metastasized, conservative apparatchiks are fighting to minimize government intervention on behalf of regular folks while preserving corporate welfare. They accuse anyone who raises a fuss of waging class warfare. Instead these agents of the status quo prefer we erroneously obsess about Social Security going bust and agree to privatize it for Wall Street's benefit.
Thankfully, renowned economist and the director of the Living Standards Program for the Economic Policy Institute (http://www.epi.org/), Jared Bernstein is using his megaphone to fight the madness. With his new book, Crunch: Why Do I Feel So Squeezed? (And Other Economic Mysteries (http://bkconnection.com/ProdDetails.asp?ID=9781576754771&PG=1&Type=AUTH&PCS=BKP)), Bernstein responds to dozens of questions asked by working Americans that relate to the dollars and cents concerns of real people. Bernstein who often appears as a commentator on CNBC wrote in the preface of his book that,
“I’m tired of being stuck in the studio engaging in rants with Darth Vaders with PhDs. Wouldn’t it be more useful to have an open-ended, rant-free dialogue with real, everyday people about their economic questions.”
With Crunch, Bernstein effectively validates the daily experience of working people struggling to keep up in a treadmill economy. He also adroitly writes with accessible prose and powerful anecdotes to both educate readers about economic nuances and empower them to influence politics in a more populist direction. Bernstein contends that the rich and powerful have as much influence on who benefits from the economy as the will of the market. He therefore hopes to inspire readers not to cede any more ground to the practitioners of hyper individualism at the expense of the American community.
One of the most memorable anecdotes in Bernstein’s book describes how Circuit City announced it planned to lay off 3,400 sales associates in the spring of 2007 in order to appease their shareholders. Bernstein utilized this anecdote to illustrate how corporate greed is both heartless and self-defeating:
“Talk about in-your face management. I can absolutely see why a firm whose stock was down by a third over the past year would decide to make some big changes. But unless your workforce is truly overpaid, replacing a big chunk of it with lower-paid workers is a recipe for lousier service, fewer sales, and lower profits. At the time, many predicted that after the initial jump, stock prices would sink further. We were wrong, though. They never got that initial bump, and the stock just kept sliding, down 15 percent a few months later (while the overall stock market was up strong).”
It’s that kind of prose that led former North Carolina Senator and populist presidential candidate John Edwards to issue the following praise:
“Jared Bernstein’s new book is a must read for everyone who cares about restoring economic fairness in an America with the greatest income inequality since the Great Depression. Drawing on everyday examples, Crunch is an accessible explanation of economic principles presented with equal parts of insight, humor, and stimulation. In the process, Bernstein explains how we got to where we are, what to do to fix it, and why fighting for a fair society is so important.”
An expert on issues of labor and income inequality, he frequently testifies on Capitol Hill. Bernstein is also the co-author of eight editions of The State of Working America (http://www.amazon.com/State-Working-America-2006-2007/dp/0801473551/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207537703&sr=8-1) and he posts frequently on Josh Marshall’s blog, TPM Café (http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/). Longtime readers/listeners of the Intrepid Liberal Journal may recall an interview he did for my blog (http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com/2006/06/bush-yoyos-while-us-burns-interview.html) after his book, All Together Now: Common Sense For A Fair Economy was published in 2006.
Bernstein agreed to a podcast interview over the telephone about his current book and the current challenges confronting the American economy. Our conversation was approximately forty-eight minutes and among the issues covered includes the housing and credit crisis, needed regulatory reform, healthcare, globalization, Social Security, America’s investment deficit and free trade.
CLICK HERE TO LISTEN TO THIS PODCAST (http://media.libsyn.com/media/intrepidliberaljournal/040608_Interview_With_Economist_Jared_Bernstein.mp 3)
This interview can also be accessed for free by searching for “Intrepid Liberal Journal” on Itunes.
_______
Intrepid Liberal Journal (http://www.intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com/)

[The Lone Bolt]

More selective attention on your part.

You missed this part:



I also posted an article a couple weeks ago that quoted the NBER president predicting the worst economic downturn since WWII.

You initially objected to these kinds of predictions because, in your estimation, they weren't coming from "experts."

Now that I've given you your experts, you are trying to move the goal posts again and/or turn this into a semantic argument. tsk tsk

Anyway, your game is slipping - I expected you to dig up some past landscaping work by at least one member of the Fed by now. ROFL!


Umm no. The "goal post" moving is all in your head.

Mikey stated flatly that for absolute certainty we were headed for "economic armageddon". I pointed out that few if any of the credible experts agreed with that view and you have still not produced expert opinions that such an economic disaster is for certain on the way, including the above article.

You missed the part "some members fretted over the possibility of a 'prolonged and severe" economic downturn.'" It seem you are the one with the reading comprehension problems. Let me explain it to you. "Some" means that not all Fed members felt this way, and "possible" means just that -- not certain, but within the realm of "possibility". And anything really is within that realm. It's "possible" that there could be a severe economic downturn. It's "possible" that there may even be a depression. I'ts also "possible" that the economy may recover without a recession. Hell it's even "possible" that aliens may land on the White House lawn tomorrow. Just about anything is "possible." Are you clear on the concept?

And none of the experts you have quoted have predicted "economic armageddon", they have only used terms which you have spun as "economic armageddon".

Find me several credible experts who are explicitly predicting the next great depression in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS. Then you will have met my standards of proof.


And that has always been my position. In your overactive imagination you believe that you have satisfied my standards, You have not, therefore there has been no "goal post moving."

[baja]

Ask yourself this, even if these experts that people look to for advice thought there were a chance that a total system break down were on the horizon would they state that publicly? I think not that would be very irresponsible of them.

[The Lone Bolt]

Ask yourself this, even if these experts that people look to for advice thought there were a chance that a total system break down were on the horizon would they state that publicly? I think not that would be very irresponsible of them.

Ask yourself this: Does a self-employed landscaper with no apparent background in economics have more credibility in the subject of economics than econ Ph.D.s and professional economists? How about LABF? What economics background does he have?

Oh wait, economics is as simple as 2+2=4 ! I forgot!Hilarious!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Umm no. The "goal post" moving is all in your head.

Mikey stated flatly that for absolute certainty we were headed for "economic armageddon". I pointed out that few if any of the credible experts agreed with that view and you have still not produced expert opinions that such an economic disaster is for certain on the way, including the above article.

You missed the part "some members fretted over the possibility of a 'prolonged and severe" economic downturn.'" It seem you are the one with the reading comprehension problems. Let me explain it to you. "Some" means that not all Fed members felt this way, and "possible" means just that -- not certain, but within the realm of "possibility". And anything really is within that realm. It's "possible" that there could be a severe economic downturn. It's "possible" that there may even be a depression. I'ts also "possible" that the economy may recover without a recession. Hell it's even "possible" that aliens may land on the White House lawn tomorrow. Just about anything is "possible." Are you clear on the concept?

And none of the experts you have quoted have predicted "economic armageddon", they have only used terms which you have spun as "economic armageddon".

Find me several credible experts who are explicitly predicting the next great depression in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS. Then you will have met my standards of proof.


And that has always been my position. In your overactive imagination you believe that you have satisfied my standards, You have not, therefore there has been no "goal post moving."

Just as I expected - your last refuge is to turn this into another semantic argument re: figures of speech.

In the meantime, you have members of the Fed predicting a "severe and prolonged economic downturn," and you have the president of NBER (the agency that makes the call as to when we are officially in a recession) predicting the worst economic downturn since WWII.

And we already know from your arguments about Iraq that your "standards of proof" = "always moving the goal posts."

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Ask yourself this: Does a self-employed landscaper with no apparent background in economics have more credibility in the subject of economics than econ Ph.D.s and professional economists? How about LABF? What economics background does he have?

But it's not a "self-employed landscaper" who is making the statements in question here - it's members of the Fed and the president of NBER!

Oh wait, economics is as simple as 2+2=4 ! I forgot!Hilarious!

According to you, economics is a hard science like biology or physics (so much for your credibility.) :rofl:

In any event, if Whitney doesn't know what he's talking about, then why are you afraid to debate him? Why do you avoid the substance of what he writes and opt to go straight for "attack the messenger?"

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Ask yourself this: Does a self-employed landscaper with no apparent background in economics have more credibility in the subject of economics than econ Ph.D.s and professional economists?

What if that "self-employed landscaper" cites a long list of professional economists and movers and shakers in the financial world to support his arguments?

Oh, that's right - you just ignore them.

[cutthemdown]

Thanks, considering the source I know that is a compliment. I confess I do extract a little pleasure knowing when the shiit hits the fan catching your smug ass completely unprepared you will think of me riding out the storm of correction in ease and comfort.

It is not difficult to take a few simple precautions just on the odd chance I am right.

I just returned yesterday from two weeks in San Diego. I had a wonderful time, spent a ton of money only a small % on survival stuff. I bought three large air tight containers and several smaller gallon size air tight containers and 25 #s of wheat berries, golden flax seed and oat groats. I have several hundred dollars worth of heirloom seeds and a water storage and purification system several pounds of sprout seed so in case I am right about this I have the ability to live comfortably for a year or longer but in the mean time I will enjoy the world as it is traveling and playing.

This summer I'm going to a raw food gathering in California and this fall I am going to Italy.

Life is good Cutt and if this is crazy I'm loving it....

raw food gathering sounds like a blast. And if everyone flew to Italy, well then it wouldn't be quaint so I bid you a happy trip. I wonder though if America fell apart, and all the illegals came back to mexico, would they still want you there?

[cutthemdown]

no doubt things are a little rocky right now but the economy isn't in as bad of shape as people are trying to say. We can muddle through a recession we have done it before.

As soon as the housing hits a low and some liquidity returns to the credit industry things will be slow on the growth. We have some inflation to deal with for sure especially in fuel sector but the food supply is not going to be a problem. Some foods are inflating but not enough to where people in the USA are going to be starving. You don't need to prepare to grow your own food like Baja. Heck if you can do it and it's fun for your, or it works for you then go ahead but supermarkets are not going to be empty anytime soon.

[baja]

raw food gathering sounds like a blast. And if everyone flew to Italy, well then it wouldn't be quaint so I bid you a happy trip. <B>I wonder though if America fell apart, and all the illegals came back to mexico, would they still want you there?

If what I think will happen happens than there will be no real good place to go to for the unprepared but I believe Mexico will fair better in general than the US primarily because Mexicans are used to doing without and generally live closer to the land in a more humble manner.

[baja]

Ask yourself this: Does a self-employed landscaper with no apparent background in economics have more credibility in the subject of economics than econ Ph.D.s and professional economists? How about LABF? What economics background does he have?

Oh wait, economics is as simple as 2+2=4 ! I forgot!Hilarious!

I am not using any one source for my predictions. I have come to this opinion by watching, listening to life in general and reading many diverse writers.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

no doubt things are a little rocky right now but the economy isn't in as bad of shape as people are trying to say.

Hmmm...who to believe?

Members of the Fed and the president of NBER, or some anonymous schmoe on an Internet discussion forum?

:laugh:

[The Lone Bolt]

Just as I expected - your last refuge is to turn this into another semantic argument re: figures of speech.

In the meantime, you have members of the Fed predicting a "severe and prolonged economic downturn," and you have the president of NBER (the agency that makes the call as to when we are officially in a recession) predicting the worst economic downturn since WWII.

And we already know from your arguments about Iraq that your "standards of proof" = "always moving the goal posts."

Wow. You really can't read can you?

Do you understand what the word "possible" means?

Adjective

* S: (adj) possible (capable of happening or existing) "a breakthrough may be possible next year"; "anything is possible"; "warned of possible consequences"
* S: (adj) potential, possible (existing in possibility) "a potential problem"; "possible uses of nuclear power"



http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=possible

This is not "semantics." It's what the article says exactly. Some of the fed members think maybe we might have a "severe and prolonged economic downturn." Nobody at the fed is "predicting" "economic armageddon". I can't help it that you have reading comprehension problems.

But I have another question: It seems that you are desperately trying to convince all of us that the economy is doomed. Why is it so important to you that we believe we are headed for "economic armageddon"?

[Rohirrim]

But it's not a "self-employed landscaper" who is making the statements in question here - it's members of the Fed and the president of NBER!



According to you, economics is a hard science like biology or physics (so much for your credibility.) :rofl:

In any event, if Whitney doesn't know what he's talking about, then why are you afraid to debate him? Why do you avoid the substance of what he writes and opt to go straight for "attack the messenger?"

Economics is a hard science like phrenology is a hard science. An economist is a combination of this guy:

http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/39/34/22573439.jpg

and this guy:

http://photos.igougo.com/images/p121361-Sumba-Witch_doctor.jpg

[The Lone Bolt]

Economics is a hard science like phrenology is a hard science. An economist is a combination of this guy:

http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/39/34/22573439.jpg

and this guy:

http://photos.igougo.com/images/p121361-Sumba-Witch_doctor.jpg

LOL

Couldn't have put it better myself!

And considering the inexact nature of economics, my reasoning is that those with stronger academic and/or professional backgrounds in the field are more likely to be accurrate in their forcasts (but still not 100%).

[Rohirrim]

LOL

Couldn't have put it better myself!

And considering the inexact nature of economics, my reasoning is that those with stronger academic and/or professional backgrounds in the field are more likely to be accurrate in their forcasts (but still not 100%).

Read the history of the Crash of '29. The majority of top economists back then were dead wrong, including Keynes.

http://www.usastores.com/Consensus/longterm/fried.htm

With two exceptions, no academic economist forecast the crash of 1929 and the following depression. Even more dramatic is the fact that in 1988, six decades after the crash and depression, Kathryn Dominguez, Ray Fair, and Matthew Shapiro concluded in the American Economic Review that employing sophisticated econometric techniques of the late 1980s and even using data unavailable in 1929, the Great Depression could not have been forecasted.

Rudy Dornbusch, Professor of Economics at M.I.T., has said that the Great Depression is, to macroeconomics, a mysterious and unexplained phenomenon.

They get swept up in the herd, just like everybody else.

[The Lone Bolt]

Read the history of the Crash of '29. The majority of top economists back then were dead wrong, including Keynes.

http://www.usastores.com/Consensus/longterm/fried.htm

With two exceptions, no academic economist forecast the crash of 1929 and the following depression. Even more dramatic is the fact that in 1988, six decades after the crash and depression, Kathryn Dominguez, Ray Fair, and Matthew Shapiro concluded in the American Economic Review that employing sophisticated econometric techniques of the late 1980s and even using data unavailable in 1929, the Great Depression could not have been forecasted.

Rudy Dornbusch, Professor of Economics at M.I.T., has said that the Great Depression is, to macroeconomics, a mysterious and unexplained phenomenon.

They get swept up in the herd, just like everybody else.


Certainly there's no guarantee that the experts will be 100% accurate all the time. But if you're gambling (another inexact field) would you take the advice of a novice or a professional gambler? A Ph.D. in economics is no guarantee of accurate predictions but it's better than nothing.

[baja]

Certainly there's no guarantee that the experts will be 100% accurate all the time. But if you're gambling (another inexact field) would you take the advice of a novice or a professional gambler? A Ph.D. in economics is no guarantee of accurate predictions <b>but it's better than nothing.

Sometimes it isn't!

[Rohirrim]

Certainly there's no guarantee that the experts will be 100% accurate all the time. But if you're gambling (another inexact field) would you take the advice of a novice or a professional gambler? A Ph.D. in economics is no guarantee of accurate predictions but it's better than nothing.

Professional gamblers don't gamble. ;D

[Beantown Bronco]

But if you're gambling (another inexact field) would you take the advice of a novice or a professional gambler?

How many brackets were won this year by "office idiots" who didn't know a thing about sports, because 4 #1 seeds made the final four? This kind of thing happens all the time.

[The Lone Bolt]

How many brackets were won this year by "office idiots" who didn't know a thing about sports, because 4 #1 seeds made the final four? This kind of thing happens all the time.

Unqualified people are bound to make lucky guesses every now and then. But you can't rely on that all the time.

[Rohirrim]

How many brackets were won this year by "office idiots" who didn't know a thing about sports, because 4 #1 seeds made the final four? This kind of thing happens all the time.

I once took a lady out on a first date to Hollywood Park to watch the races. She kept winning these two dollar bets. I was studying the Racing Form and couldn't win squat. Finally, I asked what her criteria was. She said she was going by what color she liked the best. It got so bad, some old guy behind us asked who she liked in the next race.

Best horse racing advice I ever got came from my grandfather. "Throw a hundred bucks into the toilet and flush."

[Beantown Bronco]

Unqualified people are bound to make lucky guesses every now and then. But you can't rely on that all the time.

And relying on the "pros" is the same thing.

Gambling was just a poor example to use IMO. Just go and look at espn.com every Tuesday during football season and check out the records of all these pundits and ex-players. Their pick records are no better than the average joe who is sitting on his couch casually watching games, and no better than the average person who doesn't even follow sports.

[broncocalijohn]

Read the history of the Crash of '29. The majority of top economists back then were dead wrong, including Keynes.

http://www.usastores.com/Consensus/longterm/fried.htm

With two exceptions, no academic economist forecast the crash of 1929 and the following depression. Even more dramatic is the fact that in 1988, six decades after the crash and depression, Kathryn Dominguez, Ray Fair, and Matthew Shapiro concluded in the American Economic Review that employing sophisticated econometric techniques of the late 1980s and even using data unavailable in 1929, the Great Depression could not have been forecasted.

Rudy Dornbusch, Professor of Economics at M.I.T., has said that the Great Depression is, to macroeconomics, a mysterious and unexplained phenomenon.
They get swept up in the herd, just like everybody else.


I put it like the housing market of today. In 1929, you had people borrowing up to 90% to go on margin to buy stocks. Today, they changed it to 50% to keep a repeat from not happening. In 2005, you could have borrowed 103% with bad credit and lousy FICA score to buy a $600,000 house. Those of today, didnt learn from 80 years previous.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Unqualified people are bound to make lucky guesses every now and then. But you can't rely on that all the time.

You're still using the same flawed logic.

According to you, a person can only be "qualified" if he has an academic degree.

This may be true in medicine and other fields, but not economics.

By your logic, only those folks with degrees should be successful on Wall Street or in the business/financial world.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Economics is a hard science like phrenology is a hard science. An economist is a combination of this guy:

http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/39/34/22573439.jpg

and this guy:

http://photos.igougo.com/images/p121361-Sumba-Witch_doctor.jpg

:laugh: :yep:

[The Lone Bolt]

You're still using the same flawed logic.

According to you, a person can only be "qualified" if he has an academic degree.

This may be true in medicine and other fields, but not economics.

By your logic, only those folks with degrees should be successful on Wall Street or in the business/financial world.

No my logic is that people who have academic degrees and/or relevant professional experience are far more likely to be qualified to make accurate economic forecasts than those who do not. I've said this over and over again. Keep up.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

This is not "semantics." It's what the article says exactly. Some of the fed members think maybe we might have a "severe and prolonged economic downturn." Nobody at the fed is "predicting" "economic armageddon". I can't help it that you have reading comprehension problems.

Yes, it is semantics. Your entire argument consists of an objection to the use of a figure of speech, viz., "economic armageddon." Meanwhile, you have members of the Fed talking about a "severe and prolonged economic downturn" and the president of NBER talking about the "worst economic downturn in America since WWII." Your attempt to turn this into a semantic argument serves as a deflection, i.e., it steers the discussion away from any debate re: the facts that elicit the statements quoted above.

But I have another question: It seems that you are desperately trying to convince all of us that the economy is doomed. Why is it so important to you that we believe we are headed for "economic armageddon"?

It seems you invariably urge us to "move along - nothing to see here" whenever you are confronted with evidence that the economy is headed for the ruts. Why your compulsion to deny and minimize the severity and scope of the problems facing us? (Actually, that's not entirely true: You never dispute facts or evidence presented - you simply attack the messenger.) My guess is that you engage in such denial, minimization, and deflection for the same reason you defend Bush's Iraq war lies: because to acknowledge the truth would be to admit you made a mistake in supporting Bush.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

No my logic is that people who have academic degrees and/or relevant professional experience are far more likely to be qualified to make accurate economic forecasts than those who do not. I've said this over and over again. Keep up.

:bs:

That's a lie.

You have argued, in effect, that a person who does not have an academic degree cannot sufficiently understand economics and cannot make accurate forecasts (even when he is quoting those with "releveant professional experience.")

But someone already provided a couterargument, viz., the crash of 1929, to your modified statement above.

[The Lone Bolt]

:bs:

That's a lie.

You have argued, in effect, that a person who does not have an academic degree cannot sufficiently understand economics and cannot make accurate forecasts (even when he is quoting those with "releveant professional experience.")

But someone already provided a couterargument, viz., the crash of 1929, to your modified statement above.

Is that what I argued? Care to show me the posts?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Is that what I argued? Care to show me the posts?

See all of your attacks on Mike Whitney.

[The Lone Bolt]

See all of your attacks on Mike Whitney.

What about them? He's underqualified compared to legitimate experts in the field. Maybe I used the word unqualified instead. If that's the case I misspoke.

And yeah I've had some fun at his expense. But seriously, he may have a clue but I'll take the legitimate experts any day.

BTW, you never answered my other question. Why is is so important for you to convince us all that economic disaster is on the way?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

What about them? He's underqualified compared to legitimate experts in the field. Maybe I used the word unqualified instead. If that's the case I misspoke.

Now you're back to the same flawed premise that economics is a hard science.

By your logic, a person with an advanced degree in music should always be more talented than a person without such a degree. A person with an MBA should always be more successful in business than a person without a degree.


And yeah I've had some fun at his expense. But seriously, he may have a clue but I'll take the legitimate experts any day.

That's exactly the problem: You've been so busy attacking his qualifications (i.e., poisoning the well) that you have avoided any discussion re: the facts and evidence (as well as "expert" testimony) he presents to support his arguments.


BTW, you never answered my other question. Why is is so important for you to convince us all that economic disaster is on the way?

Why is it so important for you to deny and minimize the severity and scope of the problems?

[W*GS]

Why is it so important for you to deny and minimize the severity and scope of the problems?

Why are you attempting to maximize ("economic armageddon", my ass!) them?

[The Lone Bolt]

Now you're back to the same flawed premise that economics is a hard science.

By your logic, a person with an advanced degree in music should always be more talented than a person without such a degree. A person with an MBA should always be more successful in business than a person without a degree.

"Successful" and "knowledgeable" are two different things. Making money is different from making accurate predictions. Who said that Mikey could not be successful in business? Not I. I only said that people with relevant experience and/or education would more likely make accurate economic forecasts. I'm not sure why you bring up "success." That's a different issue.

That's exactly the problem: You've been so busy attacking his qualifications (i.e., poisoning the well) that you have avoided any discussion re: the facts and evidence (as well as "expert" testimony) he presents to support his arguments.

Well I'm no economist either so in order to counterargue his position I'd have to do a great deal of research. Frankly I just don't have the time or inclination considering Mikey does not seem to have relevant qualifications in the field of economics, and (as far as I can tell) the vast majority of far better qualified authorities in the field disagree with him. "Counterarguing" Mikey seems like a big waste of time considering that he is an underqualified individual expressing an extreme and minority position which is not accepted among the far more qualified.


Why is it so important for you to deny and minimize the severity and scope of the problems?

I'd answer your question but it appears you're asking it only in order to avoid answering mine.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I only said that people with relevant experience and/or education would more likely make accurate economic forecasts.

And someone already deflated this argument with a reference to the crash of 1929.


Well I'm no economist either so in order to counterargue his position I'd have to do a great deal of research.

There's the rub, eh?

It's easier to sit back and snipe at others who are actually doing the research than to do it yourself.


Frankly I just don't have the time or inclination considering Mikey does not seem to have relevant qualifications in the field of economics...

Same old flawed premise.


and (as far as I can tell) the vast majority of far better qualified authorities in the field disagree with him.

Really? What constitutes "the vast majority?" How would you prove this?

Nevermind - we already know that "better qualified authorities" = "those who agree with LoneBolt's assessment of the situation."

"Counterarguing" Mikey seems like a big waste of time considering that he is an underqualified individual expressing an extreme and minority position which is not accepted among the far more qualified.

Same old flawed premise (with an additional error, i.e., you ignore the fact that Whitney regularly quotes the sort of "experts" you mentioned in making his case.)

In any event, do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound when you suggest a person cannot be right about something unless he has a specific credential or qualification that suits you?


I'd answer your question but it appears you're asking it only in order to avoid answering mine.

It's not important to me to convince anyone of anything - that's a fool's errand (especially when we're talking about the average Bush lemming.)

What's important to me is that we avoid denying and minimizing problems.

[The Lone Bolt]

And someone already deflated this argument with a reference to the crash of 1929.

Nope. I already said that better qualifications are no guarantee. I said "more likely." The crash represents the exception not the rule.



There's the rub, eh?

It's easier to sit back and snipe at others who are actually doing the research than to do it yourself.

As I said, I don't have the time to research the claims of every extremist position on the internet promoted by individuals who appear to have little credibility on the subject. It's a big waste of time.



Same old flawed premise.

I disagree. It's very reasonble to expect people with verifiable credentials to be more knowledgeable than those without.


Really? What constitutes "the vast majority?" How would you prove this?

I don't and I never claimed to. Reread. I said "as far as I can tell." When I see a consensus poll that suggests otherwise I'll change my mind. Right now the only thing I have to go by is my general impression since I haven't come across any such survey.


Nevermind - we already know that "better qualified authorities" = "those who agree with LoneBolt's assessment of the situation."

And those would be the people with the relevant backgrounds. They're not agreeing with me, It's I who am agreeing with them. When those same qualified experts start overall agreeing with Mikey then I'll be willing to take his position seriously.


Same old flawed premise (with an additional error, i.e., you ignore the fact that Whitney regularly quotes the sort of "experts" you mentioned in making his case.)

Mikey has not quoted any qualified experts (as I recall) who explicitly agreed with his position. He, like you, takes quotes from experts and spins them to mean "economic armageddon" when it's not clear by any means that is what they meant.

In any event, do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound when you suggest a person cannot be right about something unless he has a specific credential or qualification that suits you?

I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm suggesting that it's far more LIKELY that a qualified expert would make more accurate assessments than an unqualified one. I'm talking probabilities, not absolutes.

It's not important to me to convince anyone of anything - that's a fool's errand (especially when we're talking about the average Bush lemming.)

What's important to me is that we avoid denying and minimizing problems.

So you feel it's important that we see the "problems" as you interpret them, i.e. "economic armageddon" that will make the "Great Depression look like a picnic?" You are posting over and over again on the subject so I assume it must be important to you that we all see things as you do.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Nope. I already said that better qualifications are no guarantee. I said "more likely." The crash represents the exception not the rule.

The point is that you have argued that we should always defer to the opinions or the forecasts of so-called "experts" and the crash of 1929 is an example of how you are wrong on that account.

As I said, I don't have the time to research the claims of every extremist position on the internet promoted by individuals who appear to have little credibility on the subject. It's a big waste of time.

So you're admitting that you can't argue the merits of the claims so you opt for poisoning the well, ad hominems, etc., instead.

I disagree. It's very reasonble to expect people with verifiable credentials to be more knowledgeable than those without.

But your argument has been that those w/o the kinds of credentials that suit you can't be right about anything where economics are concerned (even when they cite the very "experts" to whom you appeal.)

And those would be the people with the relevant backgrounds. They're not agreeing with me, It's I who am agreeing with them. When those same qualified experts start overall agreeing with Mikey then I'll be willing to take his position seriously.

On the contrary, everytime Whitney cites someone with a "relevant background" (which he does quite frequently) you ignore the fact.

Mikey has not quoted any qualified experts (as I recall) who explicitly agreed with his position.

That's a bold-faced lie. Show me any article I have posted by Whitney where he fails to provide sources to back his claims.


He, like you, takes quotes from experts and spins them to mean "economic armageddon" when it's not clear by any means that is what they meant.

You have yet to establish how this is so. You have provided no examples. (Probably because you have completely avoided any discussion of the facts and opted to attack Whitney's credibility instead.)


I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm suggesting that it's far more LIKELY that a qualified expert would make more accurate assessments than an unqualified one. I'm talking probabilities, not absolutes.

:bs:

You have done nothing but harp on Whitney's occupation and how this precludes any sort of "accurate assessments" on his part.



So you feel it's important that we see the "problems" as you interpret them, i.e. "economic armageddon" that will make the "Great Depression look like a picnic?" You are posting over and over again on the subject so I assume it must be important to you that we all see things as you do.

Those were my own personal predictions, and I hope they turn out to be wrong (though I doubt this will be the case.)

You are confusing my habit of challenging (with facts and evidence) your "move along - nothing to see here" mindset with an attempt to persuade you of something (as opposed to an attempt to set the record straight and to look at facts without denying and minimizing them.)

[The Lone Bolt]

::) OK this is going nowhere (like ususal).

Tell ya what: I will concede that mikey could be right. I just highly doubt it considering he's a voice in the wilderness (and an underqualified one at that).

I'll stick with the Ph.D.s and economics professionals and you stick with Mikey the Hedgetrimmer and we'll see who's right.

And next time have quotes from qualified economists who are explicitly stating that we are for certain headed for "economic armageddon" or "the next Great Depression" (or using extensive explanations which leave absolutley no doubt that is what they mean) before proclaiming victory, M'kay?

Words like "meltdown" or "economic downturn" do not necesarily mean "Next Great Depression", and the word "possibly" indicates uncertainty rather than "we're absolutely for sure headed for one." M'kay?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

::) OK this is going nowhere (like ususal).

Tell ya what: I will concede that mikey could be right. I just highly doubt it considering he's a voice in the wilderness (and an underqualified one at that).

I'll stick with the Ph.D.s and economics professionals and you stick with Mikey the Hedgetrimmer and we'll see who's right.

And next time have quotes from qualified economists who are explicitly stating that we are for certain headed for "economic armageddon" or "the next Great Depression" (or using extensive explanations which leave absolutley no doubt that is what they mean) before proclaiming victory, M'kay?

Words like "meltdown" or "economic downturn" do not necesarily mean "Next Great Depression", and the word "possibly" indicates uncertainty rather than "we're absolutely for sure headed for one." M'kay?

:rofl:

Same fallacious "burdon of proof" you use in all your Iraq arguments.

And you continue to ignore the fact that Whitney regularly cites or directly quotes the "economics professionals" to whom you appeal in his articles (so it's the claims of those professionals you're actually disputing, in many cases.)

The list of awful things you have to deny or minimize in order to be a Bush supporter (or to save face for having been one) is staggering. :crazy:

[The Lone Bolt]

And you continue to ignore the fact that Whitney regularly cites or directly quotes the "economics professionals" to whom you appeal in his articles (so it's the claims of those professionals you're actually disputing, in many cases.)


OK enough of this BS. Show me a quote from a qualified expert that Mikey cites who explicitly states that for certain we are headed for "economic armageddon", the next Great Depression, or anything similar or STFU!

Spin anything short of such explicit terms you've got NOTHING. Understand?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

OK enough of this BS. Show me a quote from a qualified expert that Mikey cites who explicitly states that for certain we are headed for "economic armageddon", the next Great Depression, or anything similar or STFU!

Spin anything short of such explicit terms you've got NOTHING. Understand?

Show me a "qualified expert" who says for certain that this is just a bump in the road, move along, nothing to see here, folks.

Do you see how ridiculous your "burdon of proof" is?

Bottom line: On a continuum that goes from "just a bump in the road" to "economic armageddon" the evidence and the assessments of the most highly-regarded "professionals" (e.g., NBER president, Fed members, CEOs of major banks and investment firms, et al) places us at a point that is closer to Whitney's forecasts than yours (or your fellow BushCo denial and minimization artists.)

[cutthemdown]

I once took a lady out on a first date to Hollywood Park to watch the races. She kept winning these two dollar bets. I was studying the Racing Form and couldn't win squat. Finally, I asked what her criteria was. She said she was going by what color she liked the best. It got so bad, some old guy behind us asked who she liked in the next race.

Best horse racing advice I ever got came from my grandfather. "Throw a hundred bucks into the toilet and flush."

I tend to disagree. You can bet the Jockey, know if the horse is good on hot days etc, cold days, wet track, dry track etc etc. You are right though it's a crap shoot. Animals you just don't know how they are feeling.

[The Lone Bolt]

Show me a "qualified expert" who says for certain that this is just a bump in the road, move along, nothing to see here, folks.

Ummmm . . . I don't believe I said that there is nothing at all to be concerned about. We could very well be in a recession, maybe a deep one. But just because I'm not convinced that we are headed for "economic armageddon" doesn't mean that I think everything is rainbows and lolipops.

Mikey on the other hand claimed that for certain we are in for "economic armageddon", and you insist that his position is backed up by qualified experts. I'm not seeing it.

Do you see how ridiculous your "burdon of proof" is?

All I see is how ridiculous it is that you are constantly presenting quotes from experts that come nowhere near supporting your case for "economic armageddon." You present opinions that maybe a "deep downturn" is coming (and who knows what that means? How do you define "deep downturn"?), or other such ambiguous forecasts, and then do a little victory dance like you proved something when you haven't proven a thing. It's really getting silly and tiresome.::)

Bottom line: On a continuum that goes from "just a bump in the road" to "economic armageddon" the evidence and the assessments of the most highly-regarded "professionals" (e.g., NBER president, Fed members, CEOs of major banks and investment firms, et al) places us at a point that is closer to Whitney's forecasts than yours (or your fellow BushCo denial and minimization artists.)

Uh . . . I think that's just your interpretation. IMO, there's a huge gap between "recession" (or even "possble deep recession"), and an economic depression, much less an "economic armageddon that will make the Great Depression look like a picnic." You are talking about the worst possible outcome. Most forecasts I've seen don't come anywhere near that severe a prediction.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Ummmm . . . I don't believe I said that there is nothing at all to be concerned about. We could very well be in a recession, maybe a deep one. But just because I'm not convinced that we are headed for "economic armageddon" doesn't mean that I think everything is rainbows and lolipops.

"Could" very well be in a recession?

Fact: The president of NBER (the recognized arbiter of the start and end dates of recessions) just predicted the worst economic downturn since WWII.

Just another example of your habitual denial and minimization of the fruits of Bushonomics.

Mikey on the other hand claimed that for certain we are in for "economic armageddon", and you insist that his position is backed up by qualified experts. I'm not seeing it.

You're not seeing it because you ignore the substance of his claims and go straight for poisoning the well.

All I see is how ridiculous it is that you are constantly presenting quotes from experts that come nowhere near supporting your case for "economic armageddon." You present opinions that maybe a "deep downturn" is coming (and who knows what that means? How do you define "deep downturn"?), or other such ambiguous forecasts, and then do a little victory dance like you proved something when you haven't proven a thing. It's really getting silly and tiresome.::)

Once again, you are trying to turn this into a semantic argument.

I guess this is your last refuge insofar as you can't argue the facts.

Uh . . . I think that's just your interpretation. IMO, there's a huge gap between "recession" (or even "possble deep recession"), and an economic depression, much less an "economic armageddon that will make the Great Depression look like a picnic." You are talking about the worst possible outcome. Most forecasts I've seen don't come anywhere near that severe a prediction.

Bullsh*t. The president of NBER predicted the worst economic downturn since WWII. What the hell do you think that's going to look like? You're obviously going to be so busy arguing over the proper metaphor or figure of speech to describe it that you won't be prepared.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/fed-bite.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/econ-serious.jpg

[The Lone Bolt]

Ok, so your position is that, based on the forecast of a self-employed landsacaper with no apparent economics background who wrote an article citing a few legitimate authorities who suggest an economic downturn in words that may or may not mean "depression", you have concluded that anyone who is predicting anything short of the worst economic disaster of all time is "minimizing"?

Does that really seem rational to you?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Ok, so your position is that, based on the forecast of a self-employed landsacaper with no apparent economics background who wrote an article citing a few legitimate authorities who suggest an economic downturn in words that may or may not mean "depression", you have concluded that anyone who is predicting anything short of the worst economic disaster of all time is "minimizing"?

Does that really seem rational to you?

That's not my position.

The point is that your record is one of denying and minimizing any evidence that the economy is headed for the ruts - no matter what sort of language is used to describe the downturn. You invariably greet all such news with "move along - nothing to see here" and "attack the messenger" type responses.

If I'm wrong in this assessment, then you should be able to point me to one instance in which you have acknowledged even one indicator that the economy is headed for a serious downturn.

[The Lone Bolt]

That's not my position.

The point is that your record is one of denying and minimizing any evidence that the economy is headed for the ruts - no matter what sort of language is used to describe the downturn. You invariably greet all such news with "move along - nothing to see here" and "attack the messenger" type responses.

If I'm wrong in this assessment, then you should be able to point me to one instance in which you have acknowledged even one indicator that the economy is headed for a serious downturn.

OK if that's what you want then I acknowledge that the latest employment numbers, inflation numbers, bank troubles, and gas prices all bode poorly for the economy. I'm no economist however so I'm not ready to say we are yet in a recession but it looks more likely all the time.

Happy?

But I sincerely doubt that an "economic armageddon" is on the way. The vast majority of legitimate experts on the subject that I have been reading or listening to have use the word "recession" not "depression." Even the legitimate experts you cite are using terms like "possible deep downturn" -- possible meaning that it might or might not happen, and "deep downturn" is an ambiguous term that could mean anything from a relatively deep recession to a depression.

In other words the one source you cite that states unambiguously that he believes we are headed for the Next Great Depression is an underqualified self-employed landscaper who IMO does not have anywhere near the credibility of the many legitimate experts I have been hearing from who are using far less hysterical language to describe the condition of the economy.

Now could Mikey be right? Sure he could. Is he likely to know more about the economy than the numerous and far more qualified experts who disagree with him? IMO no.

So as far as I'm concerned if you want to demonstrate that Mikey has the support of legitimate experts then I need to see quotes from such experts using language that completely, unambiguously means "economic armageddon" or "Next Great Depression", because that is what Mikey is predicting. Ambiguous and subjective terms like "economic downturn" which could mean anything is not support for Mikey's views.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

OK if that's what you want then I acknowledge that the latest employment numbers, inflation numbers, bank troubles, and gas prices all bode poorly for the economy. I'm no economist however so I'm not ready to say we are yet in a recession but it looks more likely all the time.

Happy?

That's a start, I guess.

But I sincerely doubt that an "economic armageddon" is on the way. The vast majority of legitimate experts on the subject that I have been reading or listening to have use the word "recession" not "depression." Even the legitimate experts you cite are using terms like "possible deep downturn" -- possible meaning that it might or might not happen, and "deep downturn" is an ambiguous term that could mean anything from a relatively deep recession to a depression.

The president of NBER (recognized arbiter of the start and end dates of recessions) predicts the "worst economic downturn since WWII."

This is hardly "ambiguous."


So as far as I'm concerned if you want to demonstrate that Mikey has the support of legitimate experts then I need to see quotes from such experts using language that completely, unambiguously means "economic armageddon" or "Next Great Depression", because that is what Mikey is predicting. Ambiguous and subjective terms like "economic downturn" which could mean anything is not support for Mikey's views.

What do you think "worst economic downturn since WWII" means?

You are simply back to arguing semantics again.

[The Lone Bolt]

What do you think "worst economic downturn since WWII" means?

You are simply back to arguing semantics again.


OK I have tried to locate on the web a chart to make my point but I've been unsuccessful. But I'm willing to bet that it's possible for negative GDP (the common meaure of economic recession or depression) to be greater than any period since WWII and still fall far short of the Great Depression. But I'll keep looking to try to substantiate that.


But if you can prove the opposite (i.e. any period of negative GDP that exceeds every one since WWII -- even by a small margin -- is comparable to the Great Depression) I will concede the point.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Quotes


"We have not seen a nationwide decline in housing like this since the Great Depression,"
-- CEO of Wells Fargo, late last year, Link (http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/04/02/depression/index.html?source=yahoo)

"It is now clear that the U.S. and global financial markets are experiencing their worst financial crisis since the Great Depression,"
-- economist Nouriel Roubini, last week. Link (http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/04/02/depression/index.html?source=yahoo)

[The Lone Bolt]

Quotes


"We have not seen a nationwide decline in housing like this since the Great Depression,"
-- CEO of Wells Fargo, late last year, Link (http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/04/02/depression/index.html?source=yahoo)

"It is now clear that the U.S. and global financial markets are experiencing their worst financial crisis since the Great Depression,"
-- economist Nouriel Roubini, last week. Link (http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/04/02/depression/index.html?source=yahoo)



Ah that's better. More credible sources than a self-employed landscaper.

However I couldn't help but notice that neither of these experts are predicting the Next Great Depression. Once again "worst financial crisis since . . ." is not the same as "equal to", as your own article points out:

What is required to move past "since" and smack into the much scarier "as bad as" category? As in -- the current economic crisis is as bad as the Great Depression. Or, bluntly put, how will we know when and if our current recession has morphed into a full-fledged depression?

Let's concede right off that the question is still speculative. The U.S. economy is not even technically in recession yet, either by the standard definition of two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth, or as "officially" declared by the National Bureau of Economic Research. If we define a "depression" as a decline in GDP of 10 percent, then the U.S. is nowhere close.

In 1933, 24 percent of the workforce was unemployed. In February 2008, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the U.S. unemployment rate was 4.8 percent (though there are reasons to believe that number significantly underestimates the true picture). Between 1929 and 1933, U.S. GDP growth declined by around 30 percent, the stock market lost almost 90 percent of its value, and a whopping 40 percent of the nation's banks failed. In the fourth quarter of 2007, GDP growth registered an 0.6 gain. While stocks are down over the last year and a half, there's still no consensus about whether we're living through a "correction" or a full-scale bear market. And even though scores of mortgage lenders have declared bankruptcy in the last year, both the real banking system and the so-called shadow banking system of generally unregulated investment banks and hedge funds are still afloat, thanks in large part to Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke's dogged determination to ensure that if economic disaster does strike, it won't be because the Fed failed to pump enough liquidity into the system (an error that conservative economists are convinced helped cause the first Great Depression).

So we're not there yet. And maybe we'll never get there.

But at least your credible sources are getting closer to Mikey's position. Keep looking!:thumbsup:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Ah that's better. More credible sources than a self-employed landscaper.

Yep - everyone knows a self-employed landscaper couldn't possibly be right about anything (and economics and finance = medicine and physics. :rofl: )

However I couldn't help but notice that neither of these experts are predicting the Next Great Depression. Once again "worst financial crisis since . . ." is not the same as "equal to", as your own article points out:

Another ridiculous semantic argument which only serves to keep your denial and minimization tune going.


But at least your credible sources are getting closer to Mikey's position. Keep looking!:thumbsup:

The "credible sources" have been cited all along - you have simply refused to either acknowlege them or challenge their factual assertions (opting instead to poison the well/attack the messenger.)

[The Lone Bolt]

Yep - everyone knows a self-employed landscaper couldn't possibly be right about anything (and economics and finance = medicine and physics. :rofl: )

Once again I never said it's impossible that Mikey could be right. Reread. I said "more" credible. You're putting words in my mouth.

Another ridiculous semantic argument which only serves to keep your denial and minimization tune going.

So "worst financial crisis since . . ." couldn't possibly mean anything other than "comparable to"? Isn't it possible that it could be the "worst crisis since" without being anywhere near as bad as the Great Depression?

I'm pointing out the objective truth, which is that phrase "the worst crisis since" encompasses a wide range of conditions. So if I don't automatically put the worst possible interpretation on that phrase I'm "minimizing"? I'd have to disagree with that.


The "credible sources" have been cited all along - you have simply refused to either acknowlege them or challenge their factual assertions (opting instead to poison the well/attack the messenger.)

Sure you've been citing some credible sources. What you seem to have a hard time understanding is that the quotes you've been producing from those sources fall far short of supporting Mikey's prediction of certain "economic armageddon." Instead they use phrases like "possible" and "worst since" which are a long, long way from the guaranteed disaster that Mikey describes. You only put the worst, most pessimistic intrerptation on ambiguous phrases and claim to have supported Mikey's position with expert opinion when you have not.

If that's all you got then we're done here.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

So "worst financial crisis since . . ." couldn't possibly mean anything other than "comparable to"? Isn't it possible that it could be the "worst crisis since" without being anywhere near as bad as the Great Depression?

"Without being anywhere near as bad?"

Um, if it's the "worst crisis since the great depression" then that means it would have to be worse than any economic crisis in the intervening years. Since we already know what those crises were like, that should give you some idea. Further, your logic is flawed insofar as you refuse to acknowldge that "worst financial crisis since" does not preclude "comparable to." Bottom line: it's still early in the game, but the availible evidence is more supportive of my predictions than your "move along - nothing to see here" outlook.

I'm pointing out the objective truth, which is that phrase "the worst crisis since" encompasses a wide range of conditions. So if I don't automatically put the worst possible interpretation on that phrase I'm "minimizing"? I'd have to disagree with that.

You are minimizing insofar as you fail to acknowledge the implications of a crisis that could be worse than any in the intervening years since the great depression, and because you fail to acknowledge that the phrase "worst financial crisis since" does not preclude a comparable (or even worse) crisis.


Sure you've been citing some credible sources. What you seem to have a hard time understanding is that the quotes you've been producing from those sources fall far short of supporting Mikey's prediction of certain "economic armageddon." Instead they use phrases like "possible" and "worst since" which are a long, long way from the guaranteed disaster that Mikey describes. You only put the worst, most pessimistic intrerptation on ambiguous phrases and claim to have supported Mikey's position with expert opinion when you have not.

This is where you have failed time and time again.

Whiney has made factual assertions, quoted "credible sources," and made a case for why these facts warrant the conclusions he reaches.

You have yet to either dispute the facts in question or to show how Whitney, in your estimation, reaches the wrong conclusion based on the facts given.

All you have done is poison the well, impugn his credibility, and attack the messenger (and pretend this tactic constitutes an actual rebuttal of his arguments.)

[Bronco_Beerslug]

OK, I found the theme song for this thread...

--------------------------------------------------------
Wall Street Shuffle - 10cc
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kShTUmYRyCw&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kShTUmYRyCw&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[Willynowei]

Jeez i want my time back, of all the arguments to be had, you've got two guys yelling at each other about whats the best way to describe how f*cked up our economy is right now...

[TheDave]

Jeez i want my time back, of all the arguments to be had, you've got two guys yelling at each other about whats the best way to describe how ****ed up our economy is right now...

Welcome to the WRP forum... We tend to do that a lot.

[W*GS]

Bottom line: it's still early in the game, but the availible evidence is more supportive of my predictions than your "move along - nothing to see here" outlook.

How about providing us a table of relevant economic indicators from 1929 and today, so we can see just how "more supportive" the data are, 'K?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/pope-dope.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The Cavalry Isn't Coming: High Unemployment and High Inflation Make This Recession Different

"Why is this recession different from almost all other recessions?" asked Herbert Barchoff. The economist, a former president of the Council of Economic Advisers, answered his own question: "This is not only the usual cyclical recession, but also a structural recession."

Barchoff's dark assessment appeared in a letter to the editor of The New York Times---in June 1992. Then, like now, Americans were suffering through a long, grinding recession following a boom (under Reagan) that had primarily benefited the wealthy. There were mass layoffs. The real estate market had collapsed. Foreclosures were rampant.

George H.W. Bush, who had expected to coast to reelection on the strength of his near 90 percent post-Gulf War approval ratings, projected a Herbert Hoover-like resolve to not lift a finger to alleviate the misery. The Federal Reserve cut interest rates, but it didn't help. Six months later, angry voters fired an out-of-touch president who seemed unwilling to fix an economy he didn't think was broken in favor of a guy who claimed to feel our pain.

Barchoff, it would turn out, was too pessimistic. "To reverse the excesses of the 1980's," he wrote, "restructuring has been going on in massive proportions at every level. It is a rare day that newspapers do not report layoffs, often in the thousands in the industrial sector." What Barchoff didn't know--few people did--was that the U.S. was about to begin the longest, broadest and biggest period of economic expansion experienced by any civilization in human history.

Downsizing continued in traditional sectors like manufacturing and newspapers. Even during the Clinton boom, millions of people were ruined, forced to declare bankruptcy. Midwestern cities were reduced to rusted-out shells. But none of that mattered to Wall Street. The Internet revolution prompted so much capital investment, and generated so many new jobs--freshly minted college grads thought it perfectly normal to earn $85,000 moving around lines of HTML--that otherwise sane people began talking about a "new paradigm" in which "the old rules no longer apply."

In other respects, however, Barchoff was prescient. "[The then-new European Community] will substantially hurt our ability to be competitive," he correctly predicted. "The drop in interest rates is no solution. During the Great Depression the prime rate went to one percent, with no cure. When you are out of work or afraid of losing your job, you do not take on debt. Nor will entrepreneurs borrow even very cheap money unless there is a market."

The Bush Sr. recession was a grim affair. When I graduated from Columbia in 1991, the university canceled its annual jobs fair due to employers' lack of interest. But it was a picnic compared to what we're facing now. Bush Jr. could finally realize Barchoff's nightmare of a structural recession--the kind of no-way-out shock experienced by Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

"Normal" cyclical recessions feature increased unemployment, which puts downward pressure on prices. You rarely see high unemployment and high inflation at the same time. Conservative economists point to rising inflation during the late 1970s as an exception, but that wasn't even a downturn, much less a recession. Inflation was high but unemployment was low. Anyway, the inflation didn't hurt workers; during the Carter years mean wages rose faster than inflation. The opposite is true now. Real income is falling.

The economy has bled 3.1 million jobs since George W. Bush assumed the presidency in 2001, the worst record since the Depression. The official unemployment rate, constantly re-jiggered to make the economy appear more robust, has risen to 5.1 percent. The long-term unemployment rate, which includes people who have had such bad luck looking for work that they've given up entirely, has doubled, to over 13 percent.

Meanwhile, inflation is approaching seven percent. Again, that's the official inflation rate. Your mileage as an average American--who spends a third of your pay on housing and more and more on gas--will vary. But let's not dwell on the irony of $4-a-gallon gas resulting from a war fought to steal oil.

But wait. There's even more bad news.

Two-thirds of economic activity is generated by consumer spending. Most people are broke. So much for that two-thirds. "In 2000," reports David Leonhardt in The Times, "at the end of the last economic expansion, the median family made about $61,000, according to the Census Bureau's inflation-adjusted numbers. In 2007, in what looks to have been the final year of the most recent expansion, the median family, amazingly, seems to have made less--about $60,500."

This, says, Leonhardt, is a big deal. "This has never happened before, at least not for as long as the government has been keeping records." RBC Capital Markets reports that consumer confidence has fallen below 30 percent, an all-time record low. T.J. Marta, a fixed-income strategist at RBC, said: "What confidence? There is no confidence. It's like 1929."

If Barchoff had picked up a copy of the San Jose Mercury-News in 1992, he would have read about the birth of the Web revolution, then touted as the "information superhighway." But there's nothing like that coming down the pike today. To paraphrase the ever-quotable Donald Rumsfeld, we're going to have to make do with the economy we have, not the one we wish we had.

Liberal economists like Paul Krugman suggest a rerun of the 1930s, when FDR's New Deal employed millions to build new infrastructure like dams and bridges. But none of the three remaining presidential contenders is likely to undertake such a thing. "The worst-case scenario" about the 1991 war against Iraq, Barchoff said in 1992, would have been if it had lasted two years and cost an extra $200 billion. Iraq War II, now in its sixth year, is currently pegged at an estimated $3 trillion. Republican John McCain is committed to pouring more trillions into Iraq War II until victory is achieved, i.e., forever. As Democrats wary of being tarnished with the label of "big spender," both Obama and Clinton will likely place fiscal discipline ahead of expansive new government programs.

There is no short-term fix. In the long term, we must put more money into more people's pockets. That means higher wages and lower taxes for the poor and middle class. Some of what is needed is easy to see: a more progressive tax code, repealing laws that allow employers to harass and fire those who try to organize unions, nationalizing industries run by vampire capitalists--health insurers, private hospitals, colleges and universities. Banks encourage predatory lending while stifling saving. They ought to be re-regulated. What madness permits them to charge 30 percent on credit cards while paying one percent on passbook savings accounts?

More--much more--is necessary to prevent the wholesale collapse of the U.S. economic system. A maximum wage should be imposed--the highest paid American should earn no more than ten times the lowest paid. I know, I know--none of this will happen. There will be nothing but Band-Aids and lazy rhetoric as we plummet into the abyss. It cannot be otherwise, for our politics are ossified, the media is corporatized, and we the people are dull and apathetic.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/14090

[baja]

More--much more--is necessary to prevent the wholesale collapse of the U.S. economic system.

Like I've been telling you,The Perfect Storm. is coming

Forget buying the gold now and buy that place in the country and buy 'back to the land' books and equipment. Get out of the big cities and off the West coast learn to eat fresh and low on the food chain. Learn what wild foods you can eat. Use your remaining credit to do this if you must.

[W*GS]

I see the two of the usual suspects have worked themselves into a circle jerk of doom...

[Dukes]

I see the two of the usual suspects have worked themselves into a circle jerk of doom...

Nothing out of the ordinary

[baja]

Originally Posted by W*GS
I see the two of the usual suspects have worked themselves into a circle jerk of doom...


Nothing out of the ordinary

Think I will save this post and repost it in six months so all you guys laughing at Gaff LABF myself and others can have another good laugh. Or not.

[W*GS]

Think I will save this post and repost it in six months so all you guys laughing at Gaff LABF myself and others can have another good laugh. Or not.

If what you say actually comes to pass, in six months the OM will be gone because the OMers who are "lucky" enough to be part of the remaining few survivors won't give a **** about the board... We'll be eating our children to live.

Right?

[baja]

In your case i suspect it will be your children eating you.

Now there is a nauseating thought.

[W*GS]

That's the reason you don't have kids, right, baja?

You fear that they would have to resort to consuming you to survive the coming Dark Ages II, eh?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Think I will save this post and repost it in six months so all you guys laughing at Gaff LABF myself and others can have another good laugh. Or not.

As usual, W*GS and his fellow Bushonomics apologists do nothing to actually challenge the facts in the article I just posted - they simply go straight to "attack the messenger."

Looks like they are planning to stand by their man right to the bitter end.

[cutthemdown]

Cmon in 1-2 yrs Baja will still be coming on the board telling us the perfect storm is on the way. Who even cares football season almost here. If the type of doom and gloom that Baja predicts happens I doubt football would even matter. LABF will still be spouting his left wing propaganda and the Orangemane will still be here.

I agree Baja save these threads because the end of the USA is not at hand. Our economic system is not going to come crashing down. All recessions end with growth it's just how it works.

To even suggest to people to use the rest of there money to buy farm equipment, and books on how to live off the land, shows how crazy you really are.

What you should do is stop growing food, grow some weed, smoke it, and chill the **** out.

[baja]

Dude I'll bet I'm one of the mellowest most laid back people on this board. Do you think I want to see the "Perfect Storm" I'm predicting? Of course I do not.

[W*GS]

As usual, W*GS and his fellow Bushonomics apologists do nothing to actually challenge the facts in the article I just posted - they simply go straight to "attack the messenger."

A strong dose of socialism will not "fix" anything. Popping in a few factoids here and there, with a few opinion-supporting quotes from people with official-sounding titles, does not an argument make.

LABF, you post little more than far-left-wing op-ed pieces, and presume that they're composed of incontrovertible facts. That's far from the case.

And no, calling out bull**** on your socialist dogma does not constitute a defense of Bush. Only morons believe that - and since you always believe that, you're a moron. A ****ing moron, to be more specific.

[baja]

Cmon in 1-2 yrs Baja will still be coming on the board telling us the perfect storm is on the way. Who even cares football season almost here. If the type of doom and gloom that Baja predicts happens I doubt football would even matter. LABF will still be spouting his left wing propaganda and the Orangemane will still be here.

I agree Baja save these threads because the end of the USA is not at hand. Our economic system is not going to come crashing down. All recessions end with growth it's just how it works.

To even suggest to people to use the rest of there money to buy farm equipment, and books on how to live off the land, shows how crazy you really are.

What you should do is stop growing food, grow some weed, smoke it, and chill the **** out.

It's understandable what you are doing, you are looking at short cycles only. Let me suggest yuou look at the longer historical cycles. Here check this out.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,966718,00.html




People have learned to live with the knowledge that they will die. But the evidence that entire nations, apparently invincible behemoths, may be similarly fated has proved the source of enormous curiosity and awe. The Old Testament exclamation "How are the mighty fallen!" was only one of the earliest recorded responses to the spinning wheel of fortune. Ever since, the rubble of old realms has teased and provoked imaginations. In the 18th century, a visit to Rome inspired Gibbon to write an enduring history of imperial decline. Romantic poets found the gloom and doom of antiquity irresistible. Envisioning an ancient toppled monument in a barren desert, Shelley conceived an epitaph that was both ironic and admonitory: "My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:/ Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!" In a softer temper, Poe allowed the face of a beautiful woman to transport him back in time "To the glory that was Greece,/ And the grandeur that was Rome."


Birth Of A Superpower
The facts were blindingly obvious, claimed the precocious Harvard graduate in his book The Naval W...
Male Call
Life in the prehistoric era, as Marilyn French tells it, was apparently much like that in a modern S...
The Crash of a Kennedy
Patrick Kennedy, who mysteriously plowed his Ford Mustang into a security barricade on Capitol Hill ...
The Year That Changed Everything
PEOPLE WHO LIVED THROUGH TUMULTUOUS YEARS LIKE 1914 or 1941 or 1968 recognized them at the time for ...

The spectacle of eclipsed civilizations leads not just to poetry and nostalgia but also to a practical consideration: Is it possible to beat the odds that the past has so clearly posted? One answer is suggested in a new volume that U.S. policymakers and pundits are lugging around in their briefcases, an immense academic history bristling with tables, maps and charts, plus 83 pages of closely printed footnotes and a bibliography that cites nearly 1,400 sources. The book is The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, by Yale Professor of History Paul Kennedy. Its message, particularly for the U.S. at the present moment, is not encouraging.
Kennedy's study is actually two books in one. The subtitle -- "Economic Change and Military Conflict from 1500 to 2000" -- accurately describes the , bulk of the contents: a sweeping survey of the shifting balance of power over five centuries. The book could easily serve as an introductory history text for very bright undergraduates. But Kennedy is not content to end his story in the present. His final chapter, "To the 21st Century," ventures to predict which nations will prosper and decline in the near future. Astrologers do this sort of thing all the time; when a respected historian tries his hand, people pay attention.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

:laugh:

I just have to laugh at cutthemdown's perception that ~72% of his fellow Americans are 'left-wing propagandists.'