[americandream]

"The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation. The cheap prices of commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... o/ch01.htm

[outcast]

I'm not quite seeing how any of the OP's bolded points makes this any different from other recessions we've had before.......

[pablonite]

The Federal Reserve also engaged in an unusual, and in retrospect, poor responses to rising federal deficits.

Knowing what we know about the Federal Reserve, being neither Federal or a reserve but a private banking cartel that loans money to the US government at interest, you suspect it was a poor response to have a steadily rising deficit?

However was it the fault of Roosevelt, Hoover, or just the system and politics in place at the time?

Who knows when history is being rewritten everyday?

The New Deal built the New World Order
http://batr.org/gulag/081903.html
"When a nations fails to learn the true history of its past, the people are doomed to reside within a fairy tale of delusions. Once that deception becomes ingrained into the popular culture, the task of the tyrant simplifies...
...For citizens to look kindly upon Roosevelt and the mutated expansion patrimony of central planning, requires a total ignorance why the Revolution of 1776 was fought and the distrust and fears that founding patriots had towards an all powerful central government..."

[americandream]

The Federal Reserve also engaged in an unusual, and in retrospect, poor responses to rising federal deficits.

Knowing what we know about the Federal Reserve, being neither Federal or a reserve but a private banking cartel that loans money to the US government at interest, you suspect it was a poor response to have a steadily rising deficit?

However was it the fault of Roosevelt, Hoover, or just the system and politics in place at the time?

Who knows when history is being rewritten everyday?

The New Deal built the New World Order
http://batr.org/gulag/081903.html
"When a nations fails to learn the true history of its past, the people are doomed to reside within a fairy tale of delusions. Once that deception becomes ingrained into the popular culture, the task of the tyrant simplifies...
...For citizens to look kindly upon Roosevelt and the mutated expansion patrimony of central planning, requires a total ignorance why the Revolution of 1776 was fought and the distrust and fears that founding patriots had towards an all powerful central government..."

Are these the same founding patriots who kept slaves? Once you compromise your values, they are dead.

[Sixstrings]

I'm not quite seeing how any of the OP's bolded points makes this any different from other recessions we've had before.......

THIS is what's different from past recessions:
http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f295/Fishsurfer/JoblossPercentJune2009.jpg
(graphic comparing job losses in every recession post WWII)

[outcast]

I'm not quite seeing how any of the OP's bolded points makes this any different from other recessions we've had before.......

THIS is what's different from past recessions:
http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f295/Fishsurfer/JoblossPercentJune2009.jpg
(graphic comparing job losses in every recession post WWII)

So because the job losses are worse this time around suddenly makes it permenant? How about showing a graph that compares this to the great depression? Something we should consider was the enormous size of the credit bubble, which just means it will take more time to work itself out.

[Sixstrings]

I'm not quite seeing how any of the OP's bolded points makes this any different from other recessions we've had before.......

THIS is what's different from past recessions:
http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f295/Fishsurfer/JoblossPercentJune2009.jpg
(graphic comparing job losses in every recession post WWII)

So because the job losses are worse this time around suddenly makes it permenant? How about showing a graph that compares this to the great depression? Something we should consider was the enormous size of the credit bubble, which just means it will take more time to work itself out.

Dude, don't you get it? The jig is up.. no more easy credit to fund another consumer economy bubble. So, in our 70% consumer economy, where do you propose the jobs will come from? Green jobs? Good luck with that, those will be outsourced to Asia too.

EDIT: Now, assuming the best that Peak Oil and global warming aren't real, then you're correct that depression isn't "permanent." But it may as well be.. the Great Depression took what, 15 years to play out? Everyone says WWII ended the GD, but they forget that during the war years people still did without. No new cars, no hosiery for the ladies, strict ration coupons for all sorts of goods. People did without for so long that they had no choice but save their money, and that's what ended the GD -- years of sacrifice, saving, paying down debts.

[DantesPeak]

you suspect it was a poor response to have a steadily rising deficit?

Keep in mind that Roosevelt had absolute control over teh value of the dollar at that time, with the Fed in control of the number of dollars. It is the general opinion of most economists that the Fed did two major things wrong in the later 1930s, not helping finance the budget deficits enough and trying to drain free reserves from the banking system. The Fed also did not like Roosevelt's devaluation of the dollar, which caused commodity prices to increase 75% from there low in about 18 months.

While I do not think issuing new Fed money creates anything in the long run, the Fed's policies at times undermined Roosevelt's programs by making them harder to finance. The draining of free reserves is apparently a concept that Bernanke is against, so that he won't 'repeat the mistakes' of the 1930s. I do agree that the Fed too abruptly moved to make a major tightening at the first sign of economic recovery.

[outcast]

The jig is up.. no more easy credit to fund another consumer economy bubble.

We had a financial bubble because credit was unusually easy, even if we went back to the same credit standards we had before credit deregulation, credit would still be available to people WHO DESERVED IT. When there are such major imbalances then recessions happen. This is part of capitalism.

where do you propose the jobs will come from?

I'm not a fortune teller, but unless we pull a japan and total frak things up I would reckon that jobs would from other, more efficient industries.

[americandream]

The jig is up.. no more easy credit to fund another consumer economy bubble.

We had a financial bubble because credit was unusually easy, even if we went back to the same credit standards we had before credit deregulation, credit would still be available to people WHO DESERVED IT. When there are such major imbalances then recessions happen. This is part of capitalism.

where do you propose the jobs will come from?

I'm not a fortune teller, but unless we pull a japan and total frak things up I would reckon that jobs would from other, more efficient industries.

The impulse to deregulate an increasingly overcrowded market is also a function of capitalism.

[outcast]

The impulse to deregulate an increasingly overcrowded market is also a function of capitalism.

I'm not saying all regulation is bad, but too much regulation strangles economies. There was more than enough proof of that in the Soviet Union.

[americandream]

The impulse to deregulate an increasingly overcrowded market is also a function of capitalism.

I'm not saying all regulation is bad, but too much regulation strangles economies. There was more than enough proof of that in the Soviet Union.

Who determines the ideal level of regulation? Regulation or it's absence are simply functions of prevailing conditions. During the recent bubble, any notion of regulation of the derivatives market would have been anathema. In contrast, regulation will seem the most natural thing on a planet choking on the fumes of excessive industrialisation.

Social economy based on competiton, gravitates towards no regulation as that competition deepens, profits decrease and social costs are ignored. Conversely, the same structure gravitates towards regulation as competetion exceeds the carrying capacity of the social order, profits collapse and social costs threaten to overwhelm private return.

These are the objective facts of any advanced civil system. Choice is a fallacy.