That's right, the depression is getting a lot worse. And just to give you an idea of how intellecutally bankrupt the nation's economists have become, in October over 80% of the world's leading economists believe the recession is over and that we have seen the worst of it.
But it's okay, because according to Obama, the stimulus has worked. His administration has stopped our economy's free-fall and we are well on our way to recovery. This is all thanks to the wonderful stimulus package so many of these top economists said we need.
I hate to say it, but we are fucked. The overburdened university system is going to produce millions of students who can't get jobs and who will have tens of thousands of dollars of loans to pay back. Social security has failed. We are waging multiple wars. Our health care system is fucked. Our government is in debt that it will never be able to pay back. Tax rates are going to increase. Inflation is going to continue to rise at a ridiculous pace, literally stealing from our parents and grandparents savings and diluting our purchasing power.
Worst of all, no one will listen to the people that actually understand the mess. These top economists have no idea what's going on. They were taught Keynesian economics all their lives where they were taught to graph people's happiness for fuck's sake. None of them predicted this. None of them know the cause of this (They yell about AIG and deregulation but cannot make a coherent argument for it because that has nothing to do with it.) And now, they are offering insane solutions to problems they don't understand and our president is going along with it. He is basing his policies off of these economists who were beaten out of the nobel prize last year by Paul Krugman who is a fucking joke.
I don't know about you people, but I'm pretty sick of people fucking up our future and not having any control of it.
My brother has this idea that with unemployment, they have around a month to find a job/get into college or university, else the Government will find a job for them. Sounds simple, yet effective.
" My brother has this idea that with unemployment, they have around a month to find a job/get into college or university, else the Government will find a job for them. Sounds simple, yet effective. "
I think that its funny that you used the word "effective" and "government" in relation to each other.
" My brother has this idea that with unemployment, they have around a month to find a job/get into college or university, else the Government will find a job for them. Sounds simple, yet effective. "
It's possible. The private sector is only going to be hiring the top 1% or so of graduates, and a 4 year degree is quickly becoming just a high school diploma. But yea, you can always find a job with the government. Unfortunately, our standard of living will continue to decrease due to the inefficiency of government "production".
@lilburtonboy7489: If these economists know nothing and the recession isn't over, then where are we headed? Downwards I presume, but how far down? And is the whole world headed downward? Or just certain countries? I don't know to much about economics, so I wouldn't try to guess at these questions, and I am sure there are even more questions one should ask, but what do you think will happen? (These questions are directed to anyone willing to answer them.)
@MauveForest: now that you ask, I think it will get less bad and gradually start to get better, 3-4 years from now the economy will be mostly recovered. I also recall that the economists' definition of recession and everyone elses' definition is different. So yeah, world isn't gonna end, hate to disappoint everyone out there.
Haven't we already discussed this Burton? If you ever thought it was going to be a quick and easy fix, than you were fooling yourself. Hell, if it was going to be a quick and easy fix, than Bush would have done it. With posts like these you start to sound like the guy on the side of the road with a sign saying "the end is neigh"
well at least university of chicago grads will have jobs.
too bad keynesian economics fits in soo well with our current societies. glad more professors are turning away from the outdated thoughts of founding economists and look to more current theories and thoughts
Obama isn't the cause of the unemployment but I will lend more evidence to how bad this problem actually is. When you factor in people no longer receiving unemployment benefits and those underemployed, the actual number is over 20%. Yea, the economy is is extremely bad shape, and no one party, person, or plan is responsible.
@Diamond: Except for the parties, plans, and people who have had command over the pseudo-global economy in the post-war era -- i.e., monetarists and Keynesians.
@borgmaster: I don't think the world is going to end, and that all is going to fail, though sometimes it seems that way nowadays. If the end of days are coming though, I will be ready with my pitchfork and torch for sure.
Though we are going through tough times, as long as we live through it, it will all be good in the end.
We were in a recession, which is two or more consecutive quarters with GDP decreasing. A depression is four quarters or more of with GDP decreasing.
And technically, we are out of the recession. The GDP rose almost 4 percent last quarter. The question is whether or not this growth is sustainable, because we put shitloads of effort into the economy with the stimulus and programs like cash for clunkers.
This is why i hate talking about the economy. Any dumbass can list all the things gone wrong but none of them can find a solution.
That's because all the real solutions involve things that are in many ways not pleasant. I can't think of solutions, only lots of people aren't going to like it one bit.
@Diamond: Its sure a hell of a lot better than "were fucked, everyone is out of a job, people are foreclosing, corporations are going bankrupt. /wrists."
" Haven't we already discussed this Burton? If you ever thought it was going to be a quick and easy fix, than you were fooling yourself. Hell, if it was going to be a quick and easy fix, than Bush would have done it. With posts like these you start to sound like the guy on the side of the road with a sign saying "the end is neigh" "
I never said it would be a quick and easy fix, but at least we could head in the right direction. We are doing exactly what we should NOT be doing. The solution is there, and certain people know it, but it was not the chosen path.
" @MauveForest: now that you ask, I think it will get less bad and gradually start to get better, 3-4 years from now the economy will be mostly recovered. I also recall that the economists' definition of recession and everyone elses' definition is different. So yeah, world isn't gonna end, hate to disappoint everyone out there. "
The world is not going to end, but American economic dominance will. And I can't make a prediction of when recovery will happen because it depends on what the government does. As of right now, there is no recovery in sight.
Wow. This seems like an over reaction... I analyze the economy quite a bit, granted, mainly in the oil-rich Canadian provinces, but it's pretty easy to write off the stimulus package when you have nothing to lose. If, two years from now you're wrong, no one will remember what you said, if you're right, you'll let everyone know that you called it. But, I don't think you'll be right, quite the way you're over-generalizing the economic recovery by only looking at unemployment. I'm building my forecast planning model for 2010 right now at work, and have downloaded most of the external economic indicators, so I can't really give you my own assessment until the end of the week, but while the economy is still pretty soft across industries, there are a number or indications that we may see economic turnaround as early as next summer.
You can't just write off everything that the leading economists are saying, then make sweeping generalizations of alternate academic theories to use as the crux of your argument. Be specific. Right now, it boils down to an argument that sounds like "they're wrong because we're in a depression", which sounds logical, but isn't really a cogent argument for continued economic failure at the hands of the stimulus package.
" Wow. This seems like an over reaction... I analyze the economy quite a bit, granted, mainly in the oil-rich Canadian provinces, but it's pretty easy to write off the stimulus package when you have nothing to lose. If, two years from now you're wrong, no one will remember what you said, if you're right, you'll let everyone know that you called it." It isn't a guessing game where some people win and some people lose. If you strictly follow economic principles, you will be right. The problem is, people don't. I won't be wrong, and it's not because it conforms to my ideology, it's because I understand economics unlike the Keynesians. "But, I don't think you'll be right, quite the way you're over-generalizing the economic recovery by only looking at unemployment." This specific post is about unemployment, that does not mean I gauge recovery by unemployment. "I'm building my forecast planning model for 2010 right now at work, and have downloaded most of the external economic indicators, so I can't really give you my own assessment until the end of the week, but while the economy is still pretty soft across industries, there are a number or indications that we may see economic turnaround as early as next summer. " Good luck with that. If economics was a natural science where certain inputs meant certain outputs, your number crunching might make sense. Instead, it's just a waste of time, because correlation does not mean causation, and changing variables in economic models is meaningless without sound causal reasoning. "You can't just write off everything that the leading economists are saying, then make sweeping generalizations of alternate academic theories to use as the crux of your argument." I'm writing them off because they are idiots. All Keynesians are the same, consumption is intrinsically good. They completely rely on concepts such as the "multiplier" which deems all spending and production to be homogeneous . It's a complete farce, and they rest their theory on it. They believe savings means money is left out of the economy, when really saving is investment. These are not generalizations, they are facts about neo-keynesians, which more than 80% of economists are. "Be specific. Right now, it boils down to an argument that sounds like "they're wrong because we're in a depression", which sounds logical, but isn't really a cogent argument for continued economic failure at the hands of the stimulus package." As I just said, they are not wrong because we are in a depression, they are wrong because their theory is a failure. They are wrong by consistently committing the broken windows fallacy, believing in homogeneous spending, mistaking savings for loss, and by assuming spending is intrinsically good while ignoring the trade deficit, the budget deficit, and having no grasp on the effect of interest rates on our economy's capital investment structure.
Why the hell is all of that underlined and why the fuck can't I make it NOT underlined?
@lilburtonboy7489: In fairness, Keynesianism was not the foundation of this mess, Friedman's monetarism is. However, what it's being replaced with is Keynesianism, and well, that's like trying to put out an electrical fire with water.
" @lilburtonboy7489: In fairness, Keynesianism was not the foundation of this mess, Friedman's monetarism is. However, what it's being replaced with is Keynesianism, and well, that's like trying to put out an electrical fire with water. "
But Keynesianism also believed in the manipulation of interest rates, it is a monetary theory as well. Friedman and Keynes had the same view on monetary policy. The Great Depression was created by reckless monetary policy and was predicted by the Austrians. Then it was prolonged by Keynesianism which supported even looser monetary policy. All of this happened way before Friedman. I think we both agree our crisis was created by the central bank, and this type of crisis has been cyclical due to Keynesianism way before Friedman.
Good luck with that. If economics was a natural science where certain inputs meant certain outputs, your number crunching might make sense. Instead, it's just a waste of time, because correlation does not mean causation, and changing variables in economic models is meaningless without sound causal reasoning.
I'm not an Economist. I'm a Business Analyst. External Environment and Economic indicators figure into my forecasting, but I'm not responsible for fixing the economy, just looking at the key factors so that I can manipulate my data models to take into consideration best and worst case scenario planning. From that, I can look at the data and forecast by using a combination of monte carlo simulations, and auto-regssion models to predict most likely outcomes based on variable inputs. I work for one of the largest companies in the world, in a very recession resilient industry, so national and international economic indices only play a partial role to my forecasts. Competitive industry plays a larger role in market share planning, along with internal initiative planning, and current/past industry share and market trends, whether it's an R4 short-term smoothed trend, longer-term R12, or multi-year movement. But that's internal forecasting. I'm not about to get into that, because the only part I'm willing to discuss is my economic analysis, and I'm not finished yet.
What I'm trying to say, is that you're not being very specific. All you keep repeating is that it's Keynesianism, assuming that people will fill in the holes with whatever they know about Keynesianism, without actually breaking down specific points. I'm an Analyst, sue me. I need to look at data to be convinced, and if you're just going to talk like someone who's taken Econ 101/102, rather than provide insight that can create intelligent discourse, I'm done with this topic. It frustrates me when I feel like I can learn an opposing side to data that I'm analyzing, and the opposing side can't offer me anything that I can look into.
I'm challenging you. It's okay to challenge me back by offering specific points. This is part of what I do for a living, so I'm always trying to see things from all sides. Don't take this as a personal attack, you're just not convincing me by pointing fingers without alternative solutions.
Good luck with that. If economics was a natural science where certain inputs meant certain outputs, your number crunching might make sense. Instead, it's just a waste of time, because correlation does not mean causation, and changing variables in economic models is meaningless without sound causal reasoning.
I'm not an Economist. I'm a Business Analyst. External Environment and Economic indicators figure into my forecasting, but I'm not responsible for fixing the economy, just looking at the key factors so that I can manipulate my data models to take into consideration best and worst case scenario planning. From that, I can look at the data and forecast by using a combination of monte carlo simulations, and auto-regssion models to predict most likely outcomes based on variable inputs. I work for one of the largest companies in the world, in a very recession resilient industry, so national and international economic indices only play a partial role to my forecasts. Competitive industry plays a larger role in market share planning, along with internal initiative planning, and current/past industry share and market trends, whether it's an R4 short-term smoothed trend, longer-term R12, or multi-year movement. But that's internal forecasting. I'm not about to get into that, because the only part I'm willing to discuss is my economic analysis, and I'm not finished yet. What I'm trying to say, is that you're not being very specific. All you keep repeating is that it's Keynesianism, assuming that people will fill in the holes with whatever they know about Keynesianism, without actually breaking down specific points. I'm an Analyst, sue me. I need to look at data to be convinced, and if you're just going to talk like someone who's taken Econ 101/102, rather than provide insight that can create intelligent discourse, I'm done with this topic. It frustrates me when I feel like I can learn an opposing side to data that I'm analyzing, and the opposing side can't offer me anything that I can look into. I'm challenging you. It's okay to challenge me back by offering specific points. This is part of what I do for a living, so I'm always trying to see things from all sides. Don't take this as a personal attack, you're just not convincing me by pointing fingers without alternative solutions. "
Okay.
Keynesianism. When the economy is good, raise taxes and garner a budget surplus. When the economy is bad, spend massive amount of money to stimulate spending.
#1 goal of Keynesianism, fight unemployment. If people prefer to save in the present and consume in the future, this is unacceptable. They consider this to be lost output. So the money not being spent by consumers should be taxed and spent by the government.
That is just the fiscal side. As for monetary theory: Interest rates should be as low as possible. Whenever possible, the central bank should lower reserve requirements to stimulate borrowing and spending. If that isn't enough, the FED should buy US treasury bonds to increase bank reserves. Obviously, due to the law of supply and demand, this lowers the interest rates causing massive borrowing.
That is the best and shortest explanation of Keynesian I can give you.
I have class early in the morning. That's just what it is. Tomorrow, I'll explain in full all the problems and fallacies it commits. So check back tomorrow.
Wow great. A college student who thinks he knows more than people with much more experience and who are much smarter than him is going to give us solutions. Wooptie-fucking-doo.
Move to Australia. GDP growing at 2%, unemployment under 6% and interest rates at near 4% (believe it not, a good thing as it means our economy is strong) and banks safe and profitable. Plus, a working universal healthcare system.
Plus, great beaches, good beer and beautiful woman. The lucky country ^-^
" Wow great. A college student who thinks he knows more than people with much more experience and who are much smarter than him is going to give us solutions. Wooptie-fucking-doo. "
Yea, I am a college student because I'm working on a degree in philosophy and a certificate(minor) in math. I already have a degree in economics, and when I finish up with philosophy and math, I'm going to grad school for economics. I'm not just a random college student with random opinions.
Those people may have more experience, but they are are not smarter. They are wrong. That's been proven time after time. All of my economics professors still teach Keynesianism, which was shown to be failed in the 30's, and should have been completely put to rest by stagflation in the 70's. But they still stick to it because they like the ideology behind it. So who's smarter, the massive majority who reject sound economics for the sake of ideology, or the tiny minority who have been right all along?
The Austrian School had predicted the Great Depression in 1925, when everyone else thought we were in no danger. Everyone else, more than 80%, thought our economy was perfect. That's where you would stand, because you believe the ad populum fallacy does not exist. You would be the person saying "No, I'll agree with the 80-90% of the economists". Too bad they ALL turned out to be wrong while Hayek stood alone and was correct (Even won a nobel prize for it, back when the nobel prize meant something).
As I have said, this is not a guessing game. It isn't my guess versus the guess of 80% of economists. Instead, I strictly follow the laws of economics which lead to truth. If those idiotic mathematicians we call economists would abandon models and formulas and instead stick to the laws of economics governed by pure logic, they would be able to think clearly instead of being tied down to a failed ideology.
How about next time you post on here, you actually contribute something.
Log in to comment