The Cause of the Upcoming Worldwide Recession (Depression)

inlet13

...is, in my opinion, Keynesian economics. Let me lay it out step by step (we all know it's more complicated than this, but below I address part of the problem).

I'll start with the late 90s (but you could go back further).
-Tech boom, bursts
-Short Recession follows
-FED lowers interest rates, to spur spending (Monetary Policy)
-9/11 occurs
-FED lowers interest rates further (Monetary Policy)
-Government involves itself and tries to encourage home ownership plans (Fiscal Policy)
-The economy continues to recover, FED keeps interest rates low for a ridiculously long period of time (Monetary Policy)
- Housing prices skyrocket, speculators jump in
-ARMs increase from 10% in 2001 of all mortgages to roughly 50% in 2006
-As inflation becomes more apparent, FED starts to raise interest rates (Monetary Policy)
- Those with ARMs have a tough time paying, with now rising mortage rates
- Housing specultators bail, knowing the bubble is bursting
- Demand for housing collapses as interest rates increase and housing prices begin to fall
- Foreclosures mount
- U.S. housing seeps into credit markets
- Mortgage equity withdrawal slows, consumers stop spending, savings rates jump
- As foreclosures mount, issues with MBSs unravel effecting business
-Business is further effected by CDSs
- What began as a US problem is now international
- Business cuts prices to deal with downturn in consumer demand
- Business cut costs and begin layoffs
-FED tries to spur spending by cutting interest rates to near zero (Monetary Policy)
- Bailouts begin (Monetary and Fiscal Policy)
- TARP (Monetary Policy)
- Stimulus I (Fiscal Policy)
-Economy continues to contract, all economic indicators point south
- Stimulus II (Fiscal Policy)
- Quantitative Easing I (Monetary Policy)
- Quantitative Easing II (Monetary Policy)
- Similar types of Monetary and Fiscal Policies are enacted throughout the U.S. in various forms
- Similar types of Monetary and Fiscal Policies are enacted throughout the World (particularly Europe)
- Slowly the economy in the U.S. and the World pulls out of recession, yet grows very very slowly
- Inflation creeps up, slightly
- All the government spending now is affecting debt markets
- Public Debt mounts, not only in the U.S. but partiularly in Europe
- Economy continues to grow at a slow pace, also affecting Debt/GDP equation, cathing the eye of credit rating agencies
-Sovereign debt markets (government debt in an internation currency) signal problems
- Government debt becomes a bigger concern, as Greece pulls into the limelight
- PIIGS in Europe now show an increasing European problem
- Downgrades to sovereign debt occur, including the U.S.


... and yesterday, the FED tries to explain that they will solve everything with their new stimulus and Twist plans...

-Global markets tumble.

In the future:

-This entire list of events, and this new upcoming double dip recesssion, will be included in what will be classified as a "Depression".



My take: Government mainly through Monetary Policy and somewhat through Fiscal Policy was our problem and will continue to be. Keynesian ideals are why we spent so much to combat recessions. All that happens instead is that the recessions are drawn out longer, and more Keynesian ideals are used to fix them, snowballing once again. This mess will only get worse. Mark my words.

The only good thing is that they (both fiscal and monetary policy) clearly have no bullets left. But, the price we'll pay for this nonsense is going to be awful hard to swallow.


See you when the Down hits 7500.

he still stands

well, I think the problem is "deeper" than Keynesian Economics. These policies are put in place because the economy when left alone doesn't work, either. It doesn't work because there are few jobs that produce something tangible any longer. We've exploited all the new land, resources and technologies. Now we're left with sales jobs of shit consumer products, trading imaginary numbers, multi-level marketing schemes and the "service" sector. Nobody is actually producing anything of substance which would drive the jobs/spending in the aforementioned industries.

It's like an incredibly complex house of cards... not the palace that most people think we live in.

I think the solution will sound Marxist or Anarchist... and there is no way around that. Count me in for Anarchy.

cableguy119

Aren't you forgetting about a Billion+ chinese and the currency maniupulation being done there?
Could the chinese currency manipulation be a form of of a new age warfare? Is the chinese governments monetary policy a passive agressive means at showing their superiority?

Very many salient points though.

maj4e

Some excellent points. I know there are tons of statistics and indices regarding recession. However I think it is open to interpretation what exactly we're talking about. I still see the mall parking lot full. Restaurants have waiting lists, I seldom watch commercials but I saw one for Macy's or Belk's and there was a lady with a sweater, it was something you wouldn't wear every day. It was only $99. When the iphone is released next month there will be lines down the street.

So is the economy down and are there people hurting? yes. Is it overblown due to our consumer based economy? yes.

inlet13

he still stands wrote:

well, I think the problem is "deeper" than Keynesian Economics. These policies are put in place because the economy when left alone doesn't work, either. It doesn't work because there are few jobs that produce something tangible any longer. We've exploited all the new land, resources and technologies. Now we're left with sales jobs of shit consumer products, trading imaginary numbers, multi-level marketing schemes and the "service" sector. Nobody is actually producing anything of substance which would drive the jobs/spending in the aforementioned industries.

It's like an incredibly complex house of cards... not the palace that most people think we live in.

I think the solution will sound Marxist or Anarchist... and there is no way around that. Count me in for Anarchy.

How do you know that the economy when left alone doesn't work either? We haven't really tried that in at the very least the past 50 years. A lot of things have changed, for sure. And, yes I'd say recessions would continue to occur if the economy was left alone. Business cycles just happen. My sole point is that Keynesian economics, which has it's heart in all the right places, does more harm than good. Keynesian economics seeks to control what's uncontrollable. We can't control business cycles. Keynesian economics seeks to limit the severity of recessions, and in my opinion it actually prolongs them, and when they are severe... this ideology can actually make recessions much much more severe and lengthy.

That said, the worst part of Keynesian economics is that IT SEEMS AS THOUGH IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO. But, in fact, it's not.

inlet13

cableguy119 wrote:

Aren't you forgetting about a Billion+ chinese and the currency maniupulation being done there?
Could the chinese currency manipulation be a form of of a new age warfare? Is the chinese governments monetary policy a passive agressive means at showing their superiority?

Very many salient points though.

hmmm... didn't factor that in. I was trying to kinda stem things from the U.S. point of view. Although I included what's happening in Europe, just to try to show why their debt problems will and are testing us.

But, good point.

pjhawks

inlet13 - the Dow is still at 10,700. still a ways to go until it hits 7500. and the importance is not in the points drop but in the percentage drop. markets are about confidence and the 'sky is falling' sect aren't helping. as the guy above said, still long lines for Ipads and food in the grocery stores. it's not great i'll grant you, but maybe it's just a natural correction from the over-inflated 90s economy.

inlet13

maj4e wrote:

Some excellent points. I know there are tons of statistics and indices regarding recession. However I think it is open to interpretation what exactly we're talking about. I still see the mall parking lot full. Restaurants have waiting lists, I seldom watch commercials but I saw one for Macy's or Belk's and there was a lady with a sweater, it was something you wouldn't wear every day. It was only $99. When the iphone is released next month there will be lines down the street.

So is the economy down and are there people hurting? yes. Is it overblown due to our consumer based economy? yes.

Interesting. I think that depends on where you live.

I live in Philly, so I'm insulated from the recession because mainly Philly is dominated by education and healthcare. I agree, it doesn't seem bad when I go to the mall. That said, I think you live in certain areas hit hard by the housing downturn, you'd notice things a bit more or would have.

Also, I think, personally, The Great Depression, is thought of now as worse than it actually was. At the time, for a typical person living in that time, it may have felt just a bit worse than what we are experiencing now. If a Depression does play out, it will affect everyone, but you may not be directly affected too much if you live in the right area and have a insulated job.

Regardless of whether that's true or not, I actually think there will continue to be lines for consumer products regardless of how bad things get (even at 25% unemployment), but poverty will continue to jump (which everyone would agree is bad). That's the scary thing. This could get a hell of a lot worse.... and I think that's just around the corner. Once Europe falls back, everyone's going to cave again in my opinion.

Remember unemployment just about doubled a matter of a few years with the first downturn. If it doubles again, we're looking at 18% unemployment (using the current metric). That may actually be worse, arguably than the height of the Depression because unemployment measurements have changed drastically recently so our current unemployment statistic is constrained, whereas old measures were not. I don't see unemployment, using the current measurement hitting 18%, but I could easily see higher than 15%. That, to me, is very, very bad. And would mean 10 more years from it's height to get things back to semi-normal.

College kids right now are basically F'd. 50 year olds, who get laid off, will be basically F'd in five years because they may never get a job again. This really does have disaster written all over it. Think about all the people who could have been gaining job skills that are sitting on the sidelines, then multiply that by two or three.

Cosmo

cableguy119 wrote:

Aren't you forgetting about a Billion+ chinese and the currency maniupulation being done there?
Could the chinese currency manipulation be a form of of a new age warfare? Is the chinese governments monetary policy a passive agressive means at showing their superiority?

Very many salient points though.

...
I was thinking the same thing... how does China factor in to all of this? Are investors putting their money in Chinese companies?

inlet13

pjhawks wrote:

inlet13 - the Dow is still at 10,700. still a ways to go until it hits 7500. and the importance is not in the points drop but in the percentage drop. markets are about confidence and the 'sky is falling' sect aren't helping. as the guy above said, still long lines for Ipads and food in the grocery stores. it's not great i'll grant you, but maybe it's just a natural correction from the over-inflated 90s economy.

I'm not saying the Dow isn't at 10700. I'm saying it will fall back to 7500 at some point soon, within the next year... and I'd say it will fall below 9000 before 2012. Yes, markets are about confidence,... but also macro drivers and fundamentals. The issue is that macro environments are driving markets (and confidence). If you look at the macroeconomic picture it's horrible. I agree confidence needs to be restored, but the way to do that is to turn the economy around. Lack of any momentum (and some downturn) in jobs, production, manufacturing and housing are not calming matters. Also, now the government has it's hands tied because they tried to "inflate" their way out of this mess. Now, they have their own credit problem. I think the trigger will be a Euro country, most likely Greece or Portugal (acting as the new Lehman). That bullet will hit us. If we sink again there won't be imaginary life rafts. We'll be in the water and we'll have to learn how to swim.

pjhawks

inlet13 wrote:

College kids right now are basically F'd. 50 year olds, who get laid off, will be basically F'd in five years because they may never get a job again. This really does have disaster written all over it. Think about all the people who could have been gaining job skills that are sitting on the sidelines, then multiply that by two or three.

50 year olds who have gotten laid off have always been fucked. but i do agree that we have kind of screwed the generation that just finished college. the age group from about 21-27 kind of had college forced on them, we've saddled most of them with ridiculous college loan debt which also means affording a mortgage is years away, we don't have the jobs for them.

inlet13

pjhawks wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

College kids right now are basically F'd. 50 year olds, who get laid off, will be basically F'd in five years because they may never get a job again. This really does have disaster written all over it. Think about all the people who could have been gaining job skills that are sitting on the sidelines, then multiply that by two or three.

50 year olds who have gotten laid off have always been fucked. but i do agree that we have kind of screwed the generation that just finished college. the age group from about 21-27 kind of had college forced on them, we've saddled most of them with ridiculous college loan debt which also means affording a mortgage is years away, we don't have the jobs for them.

Agreed on both points...

I guess my point about the 50-somethings is:

1) Job market's worse than normal
2) It's not going to get better, and will actually get worse
3) They won't have too much time to plan for the crash that's coming to Social Security
4) Their 401K will be trash and they won't have time (or the ability due to a lack of job) to recoup the loss

Cosmo

pjhawks wrote:

50 year olds who have gotten laid off have always been fucked. but i do agree that we have kind of screwed the generation that just finished college. the age group from about 21-27 kind of had college forced on them, we've saddled most of them with ridiculous college loan debt which also means affording a mortgage is years away, we don't have the jobs for them.

...
It all depends upon what those 50 year olds have been doing with their money during their 30 previous years of earning, right? Are they in debt or have they been building up a savings? Is their mortgage paid off or not?
If they have been spending, instead of saving... yeah, they are fucked. But, they have been fucking themselves.
If you are 50 and older, you should be looking towards retirement and should at least have a plan in place... that should have been in place by, at least, the 15th year of your career.
20 year olds need to consider their retirement, too. The earlier you start saving, the better off you will be. Qualifying the difference between NEED and WANT is the first step. If you are 20 and spend 600 dollars on a Pearl Jam poster by charging your MasterCard when you only have $127.53 in savings... you need to evaluate your priorities.

Cosmo

inlet13 wrote:

Agreed on both points...

I guess my point about the 50-somethings is:

1) Job market's worse than normal
2) It's not going to get better, and will actually get worse
3) They won't have too much time to plan for the crash that's coming to Social Security
4) Their 401K will be trash and they won't have time (or the ability due to a lack of job) to recoup the loss

...
Question: Where are your savings?

he still stands

inlet13 wrote:

How do you know that the economy when left alone doesn't work either? We haven't really tried that in at the very least the past 50 years. A lot of things have changed, for sure. And, yes I'd say recessions would continue to occur if the economy was left alone. Business cycles just happen. My sole point is that Keynesian economics, which has it's heart in all the right places, does more harm than good. Keynesian economics seeks to control what's uncontrollable. We can't control business cycles. Keynesian economics seeks to limit the severity of recessions, and in my opinion it actually prolongs them, and when they are severe... this ideology can actually make recessions much much more severe and lengthy.

That said, the worst part of Keynesian economics is that IT SEEMS AS THOUGH IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO. But, in fact, it's not.

You don't need to sell me on the dangers of Keynesian Economics... I largely agree. My point was just that I don't think a "free market capitalist" society is even a possible scenario at this point... things would fall into mass chaos in a matter of days. It contradicts everything those in power really want and they wouldn't allow it to happen.

What is the alternative? well, it's been beaten out of our heads for the past 200 years and Chomsky does a better job of explaining it than I do; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTo7GkQ6iTs

inlet13

Cosmo wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Agreed on both points...

I guess my point about the 50-somethings is:

1) Job market's worse than normal
2) It's not going to get better, and will actually get worse
3) They won't have too much time to plan for the crash that's coming to Social Security
4) Their 401K will be trash and they won't have time (or the ability due to a lack of job) to recoup the loss

...
Question: Where are your savings?

Depends on what exactly you mean by savings, but I pulled out of the market roughly 2 months ago (investments/401K). I kept my money in my 401K but placed it in the cash option (there's normally an option in your 401K for something that will mimic cash, so it's like placing $1 in and keeping that $1.)

I'm simply trying to live in my means (not getting a better house now that my family's growing), increase my savings just in case I'm laid off by saving in a bank CD / savings account for now.

My plan is to wait until things get really, really low, then max my 401K out and jump back in investment wise. Last go around the low was 6500 or so on the Dow. I plan to kinda wait things out, feel it out, and jump back in south of 8000.... if it looks horrible south of 7000.

If thing do turn around before 8000, and I really think it's a brighter picture, I can jump in at 9000. Either way, I'll be better off than I would've been keeping things in.

The only way I lose is if this is a hiccup and things start jumping up. I don't see that happening.

inlet13

he still stands wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

How do you know that the economy when left alone doesn't work either? We haven't really tried that in at the very least the past 50 years. A lot of things have changed, for sure. And, yes I'd say recessions would continue to occur if the economy was left alone. Business cycles just happen. My sole point is that Keynesian economics, which has it's heart in all the right places, does more harm than good. Keynesian economics seeks to control what's uncontrollable. We can't control business cycles. Keynesian economics seeks to limit the severity of recessions, and in my opinion it actually prolongs them, and when they are severe... this ideology can actually make recessions much much more severe and lengthy.

That said, the worst part of Keynesian economics is that IT SEEMS AS THOUGH IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO. But, in fact, it's not.

You don't need to sell me on the dangers of Keynesian Economics... I largely agree. My point was just that I don't think a "free market capitalist" society is even a possible scenario at this point... things would fall into mass chaos in a matter of days. It contradicts everything those in power really want and they wouldn't allow it to happen.

What is the alternative? well, it's been beaten out of our heads for the past 200 years and Chomsky does a better job of explaining it than I do; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTo7GkQ6iTs

I don't know your definition of a "free market capitalist" society. I am not trying to argue philosophy here. I simply do think it is very possible for both Monetary and Fiscal Policy to take more of an Austrian-perspective when it comes to business cycles. In other words, just don't take the Keynesian approach. That's the crux of it.

So, going forward, the FED and the President and Congress should just "not solve" anything. Let the cards fall. We'll take our one hard punch to the face and fall down and bleed, rather try to continue to block the punches and be punched over and over relentlessly for a decade.

he still stands

inlet13 wrote:

I don't know your definition of a "free market capitalist" society. I am not trying to argue philosophy here. I simply do think it is very possible for both Monetary and Fiscal Policy to take more of an Austrian-perspective when it comes to business cycles. In other words, just don't take the Keynesian approach. That's the crux of it.

So, going forward, the FED and the President and Congress should just "not solve" anything. Let the cards fall. We'll take our one hard punch to the face and fall down and bleed, rather try to continue to block the punches and be punched over and over relentlessly for a decade.

so, I don't know what the Austrian perspective is... and basically you're saying that the federal government should not do anything related to the economy. this is my favorite (and, I think, best) definition of a "free market" and other others, please note the distinction between a "free market" and "capitalism"

DEFINITIONS AND DISTINCTIONS

FREE MARKET: That condition of society in which all economic transactions result from voluntary choice without coercion.
THE STATE: That institution which interferes with the Free Market through the direct exercise of coercion or the granting of privileges (backed by coercion).
TAX: That form of coercion or interference with the Free Market in which the State collects tribute (the tax), allowing it to hire armed forces to practice coercion in defense of privilege, and also to engage in such wars, adventures, experiments, "reforms", etc., as it pleases, not at its own cost, but at the cost of "its" subjects.
PRIVILEGE: From the Latin privi, private, and lege, law. An advantage granted by the State and protected by its powers of coercion. A law for private benefit.
USURY: That form of privilege or interference with the Free Market in which one State-supported group monopolizes the coinage and thereby takes tribute (interest), direct or indirect, on all or most economic transactions.
LANDLORDISM: That form of privilege or interference with the Free Market in which one State-supported group "owns" the land and thereby takes tribute (rent) from those who live, work, or produce on the land.
TARRIFF: That form of privilege or interference with the Free Market in which commodities produced outside the State are not allowed to compete equally with those produced inside the State.
CAPITALISM: That organization of society, incorporating elements of tax, usury, landlordism, and tariff, which thus denies the Free Market while pretending to exemplify it.
CONSERVATISM: That school of capitalist philosophy which claims allegiance to the Free Market while actually supporting usury, landlordism, tariff, and sometimes taxation.
LIBERALISM: That school of capitalist philosophy which attempts to correct the injustices of capitalism by adding new laws to the existing laws. Each time conservatives pass a law creating privilege, liberals pass another law modifying privilege, leading conservatives to pass a more subtle law recreating privilege, etc., until "everything not forbidden is compulsory" and "everything not compulsory is forbidden".
SOCIALISM: The attempted abolition of all privilege by restoring power entirely to the coercive agent behind privilege, the State, thereby converting capitalist oligarchy into Statist monopoly. Whitewashing a wall by painting it black.
ANARCHISM: That organization of society in which the Free Market operates freely, without taxes, usury, landlordism, tariffs, or other forms of coercion or privilege. "Right" anarchists predict that in the Free Market people would voluntarily choose to compete more often than to cooperate; "left" anarchists predict that in the Free Market people would voluntarily choose to cooperate more often than to compete.

Robert Anton Wilson, The Illuminatus! Trilogy (New York: Dell, 1975) pp. 622-23

inlet13

he still stands wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

I don't know your definition of a "free market capitalist" society. I am not trying to argue philosophy here. I simply do think it is very possible for both Monetary and Fiscal Policy to take more of an Austrian-perspective when it comes to business cycles. In other words, just don't take the Keynesian approach. That's the crux of it.

So, going forward, the FED and the President and Congress should just "not solve" anything. Let the cards fall. We'll take our one hard punch to the face and fall down and bleed, rather try to continue to block the punches and be punched over and over relentlessly for a decade.

so, I don't know what the Austrian perspective is... and basically you're saying that the federal government should not do anything related to the economy. this is my favorite (and, I think, best) definition of a "free market" and other others, please note the distinction between a "free market" and "capitalism"

I think you should read about the Austrian perspective. I'm not saying the federal government should not do anything related to the economy. I'm saying they shouldn't try to "help" the economy. The reason is, they always make things worse when they try to help. Think of it this way, every dollar the government obtains comes from the private market place. Spending that money wisely on public goods may be worthwhile. But, spending the money strictly to "boost" the economy is ridiculous. The government can't get us out of trouble, only we can.

I'm not derailing this thread with a conversation on philosophical semantics on the terms capitalism and free markets. I understand you want to say they are not synonymous. I am responding, who knows, depending on the semantics, you may be right. I just don't think it's even slightly relevant to this thread.

CH156378

:roll:

he still stands

inlet13 wrote:

I think you should read about the Austrian perspective. I'm not saying the federal government should not do anything related to the economy. I'm saying they shouldn't try to "help" the economy. The reason is, they always make things worse when they try to help. Think of it this way, every dollar the government obtains comes from the private market place. Spending that money wisely on public goods may be worthwhile. But, spending the money strictly to "boost" the economy is ridiculous. The government can't get us out of trouble, only we can.

I'm not derailing this thread with a conversation on philosophical semantics on the terms capitalism and free markets. I understand you want to say they are not synonymous. I am responding, who knows, depending on the semantics, you may be right. I just don't think it's even slightly relevant to this thread.

I think it is relevant... because I don't see any evidence that a "free market capitalist" economy has (or has ever in the past...) been successful. See the Chomsky video that I posted earlier... he talks about this.

inlet13

he still stands wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

I think you should read about the Austrian perspective. I'm not saying the federal government should not do anything related to the economy. I'm saying they shouldn't try to "help" the economy. The reason is, they always make things worse when they try to help. Think of it this way, every dollar the government obtains comes from the private market place. Spending that money wisely on public goods may be worthwhile. But, spending the money strictly to "boost" the economy is ridiculous. The government can't get us out of trouble, only we can.

I'm not derailing this thread with a conversation on philosophical semantics on the terms capitalism and free markets. I understand you want to say they are not synonymous. I am responding, who knows, depending on the semantics, you may be right. I just don't think it's even slightly relevant to this thread.

I think it is relevant... because I don't see any evidence that a "free market capitalist" economy has (or has ever in the past...) been successful. See the Chomsky video that I posted earlier... he talks about this.

I didn't want to derail the thread, as I said, but since you're pushing to talk about Chomsky...

Chomsky, in my humble opinion, is a philosopher with a political agenda. Not saying we all don't have agenda's of some sort. Just saying he's an activist. There's nothing wrong with that other than this...

He macro's macro issues, then macro's them again and tries to use verbiage to make his point. He's a linguist, after all. Your point here is a linguist-style semantic point and I don't really care about semantics.

For Chomsky, it makes sense, that's his expertise... he's a linguist. I believe, he never really pokes at real issues, instead (in my opinion) he floats above them on some sort of philosophical cloud. Not saying he doesn't make points that make you go hmmmm, in the philosophical sense. He does. That video is proof. I hmm'd a few times. I just think he's a philosopher. He'll get a person thinking. But, I'd say he's not an economist and knows very little about the economy.

Finally, getting at your point... "free market" to me means... a market free from state intervention. "Capitalism" to me means.. an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit, usually in competitive markets. To me, free market capitalism (the combination of the two above) has never and will never be tried at it's fullest because governments exist. I don't think this is as simple as saying do away with governments. This is a linear scale. You want to go as close to the do away with governments as possible, while allowing the government to produce public goods and keep law. That's it. That should be the government's job, to enforce laws and provide public goods. I'm not going to discuss public goods because that's a topic for an entire thread. But, my point here is that in my opinion, we should be reaching as far to the free-market capitalist end of the linear relationship as possible. Saying this has been tried successfully is subjective and could easily be argued. But, my point is I didn't even want to go here because, still, in my opinion, this has absolutely nothing to do with the thread. It's a philosophical argument. And to me, philosophy is great, but really useless because it's rarely ever really practiced. It's just a debate society. Economic ideologies, on the other hand, are practiced and matter more than people know.

he still stands

no one is talking about philosophy. I keep going back to the fundamental problem which isn't whether or not the government gets involved, it is that the economy itself doesn't have any foundation and is an inherently flawed system because it relies on infinitely increasing production and consumption of finite resources. Several years ago Putin said "I don't understand the American economy, it seems like all they do is sell houses to each other." In 15 years, all we will do is sell cheeseburgers to each other and then go watch Transformers 7. What you produce, what you spend time working on, etc should be an organic process. It should be what you want to do to feed yourself and your family and live the life you want. It should NOT be about trying to find a shit job for a wage that you need to survive, which is what almost all of us do. All I'm doing is arguing for the free market and against capitalism.

inlet13

he still stands wrote:

no one is talking about philosophy.

You were talking philosophy by bringing Captain Philosophy (Chomsky) into this.

he still stands wrote:

I keep going back to the fundamental problem which isn't whether or not the government gets involved, it is that the economy itself doesn't have any foundation and is an inherently flawed system because it relies on infinitely increasing production and consumption of finite resources.

Your arguing against the economy here. I don't get your rationale at all. We allocate scarce resources through markets. Technology can increase scarce resources. This, at least to me, is the best way of doing such.

he still stands wrote:

Several years ago Putin said "I don't understand the American economy, it seems like all they do is sell houses to each other." In 15 years, all we will do is sell cheeseburgers to each other and then go watch Transformers 7.

Putin wouldn't understand the American economy.

he still stands wrote:

What you produce, what you spend time working on, etc should be an organic process. It should be what you want to do to feed yourself and your family and live the life you want. It should NOT be about trying to find a shit job for a wage that you need to survive, which is what almost all of us do. All I'm doing is arguing for the free market and against capitalism.

This sounds like you live in a Utopian dream world.

The system we have now, allows one to do what they want to feed themselves... if they are good at it. If they are just ok, they may be able to do it. If they are horrible, they can't.

The alternatives to the current system of free-market capitalism is MORE government involvement in production, or anarchy. I'm fairly sure, your guy Chomsky would favor the former. But, then he would start going into word games and try to completely dodge the original question from high above with some sort of philosophical/semantical rant.

he still stands

I disagree with literally everything that you say, and it is clear that you do not have any intention of understanding my point of view but rather to talk exclusively about yours. So... peace, dude.

PJ_Soul

Maybe this story will end up giving this thread a comeback! Yeehaw!

Congress passes rollback of banking rules put in place after financial crisis, sending bill to Trump to sign

by Washington Post Staff May 22 at 5:41 PM

The House voted to exempt small and regional banks from some of the most stringent rules put in place after the financial crisis, while also loosening some of the rules aimed at keeping the biggest banks from failing. The measure does not repeal the 2010 Dodd-Frank law, as some in the GOP had hoped, but it does represent the most significant scaling back of the rules to date.

Supporters say the rollback frees banks from needlessly onerous rules and will boost economic growth, while critics say it exposes the economy to unnecessary risks at a time when banks are posting record profits.

The bill is near certain to become law. It is backed by the White House and was passed by the Senate in March.
This is a developing story. It will be updated.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/05/22/congress-passes-rollback-of-banking-rules-put-in-place-after-financial-crisis-sending-bill-to-trump-to-sign/?utm_term=.b26c8d4d3362&wpisrc=al_news__alert-economy--alert-politics--alert-national&wpmk=1

Smellyman

inlet13's prediction certainly didn't come true.

Economics and those who expound on it make me sad.

brianlux

Smellyman said:

inlet13's prediction certainly didn't come true.

Economics and those who expound on it make me sad.

Economics... such a crap shoot.  The only thing we can predict with any certainty is it goes up and it goes down.  Even well studied James Howard Kunstler, who wrote some marvelous fiction and non-fiction about the great economic collapse he calls "The Long Emergency", has been off widely thus far in his predictions.

I'm not quite old enough to have live through the Great Depression of 1929 but I have lived through the 1973 OPEC embargo, the big early '80's recession, the 1987 Black Monday, the 2001 Dot-com crash, and the 2008 so-called "Great Recession"  and the only one that affected my life much at all was the OPEC embargo and that was mostly just a matter of timing my gassing up the car and cutting back on any excess driving which was no big deal.  My roughest economic times (like having to live in my van) were due to personal matters, not the so-called "economic crises".  I don't get it about that.

PJ_Soul

brianlux said:

Smellyman said:

inlet13's prediction certainly didn't come true.

Economics and those who expound on it make me sad.

Economics... such a crap shoot.  The only thing we can predict with any certainty is it goes up and it goes down.  Even well studied James Howard Kunstler, who wrote some marvelous fiction and non-fiction about the great economic collapse he calls "The Long Emergency", has been off widely thus far in his predictions.

I'm not quite old enough to have live through the Great Depression of 1929 but I have lived through the 1973 OPEC embargo, the big early '80's recession, the 1987 Black Monday, the 2001 Dot-com crash, and the 2008 so-called "Great Recession"  and the only one that affected my life much at all was the OPEC embargo and that was mostly just a matter of timing my gassing up the car and cutting back on any excess driving which was no big deal.  My roughest economic times (like having to live in my van) were due to personal matters, not the so-called "economic crises".  I don't get it about that.

No recession or depression affects everyone negatively (and some benefit from them). Just because an economic crisis doesn't affect you (or anyone), it doesn't mean it's "so-called", or that it deserved its own quotation marks.... I'm sure all those people who lost their job or business or home or savings or investments during any one of those times wouldn't use those quotation marks!