United States Heading towards a Depression?

I think there was some misunderstanding. I wasn't saying that there is not a real problem, there is. I just think that the media can alter peoples perception easily.

I do think that the average American feels that they have less money in their pockets now than they did just two or three years ago. I don't this is a perceived problem, I think it is real. I'm not sure that I like the idea of the government bailing people out of their problems. However, if things only get worse, then we'll see the problem more often. And that means that some of us might be in that situation where we just can no longer afford what we have. I'm sure most of us would like to see the government get help at that point.

This is the way it works... you don't want the government buying out peoples problems until you are in the situation. Luckily, I feel confident in the decision I made when I bought my house and don't have any outlandish vehicles. I do think the people that are feeling this initial problem were living a bit out of their means, but we're approaching hitting those that didn't and just can't afford their homes and/or cars anymore.

 

you seem to have no comprehension of the jobs and credit the bubble market created

there are other people involved then just the home owners and lenders

thousands of real estate related jobs where created, the easy credit from home equity fueled the whole economy

funny thing is for awhile now you have been saying how good the economy is doing under bush, and the reality is that the housing bubble is where all that money has came from

anyone who sells big ticket items has watched their sales dry up

its fantasy , the idea that the only people being affected are over extended home owners, because you don't see the effects as much in your area does not mean there isn't major effects on the coasts, where all of the countries money is located

 

Not really... There is and is not a problem. That's the real point. The media continues to beat that dead horse in the hopes that there SOROs infusion of an altered reality gains critical acclaim in the soon to be re-occupied White House.

Bad news is good news for the news industry. They feed off of it. If nothing bad is happening, there is NO news. I think the problem is overstated and understated.

er, actually, misstated.

I have yet to see any mainstream media outlet show me a single hard working family of 4 in a modest home with a modest income and modest expenses that is in dire straights.

All I see are the sky caps living in $3500/mo. homes, needing borders.

The lady living in her big SUV with her expensive dogs because she cannot afford the mortgage on her 4 million dollar Santa Barbara Estate.

The Librarian that makes $50k/year that cannot afford her $569,000.00.

The reason we have less money in our pockets is because we keep giving it away to terrorists that make our energy.

If we would stop whining and make our own, we'd have more of our own money.

What a lot of people do not realize is that THREE TIMES the amount spent on the entire Iraq War goes overseas to oil cartels EVERY YEAR!

3 TIMES the money we spent on the entire Iraq War!!!

THREE TIMES THAT AMOUNT!!!

3 times that amount goes to oil cartels. And again, that is EVERY YEAR! 3 times that amount, every single year. We could pay down the national debt in less than 10 years with all that money!

Americans can bitch all day long about how much they have to pay for the war, health care, taxes, whatever... But they gladly pump terrorist gas into their SUV's and have been for years!!!!

Energy drives and has driven our economy for a long time. Not the housing market. ENERGY!!!

Until we make more of our own, we will continue to slide economically. I've lived through 30+ years of administration after administration and no energy policy. No refineries built in my life time. No new nukes built in my life time. Less and less drilling in my lifetime. Gas WAY UNDER A BUCK a gallon in my life time, to what equates to NO GAS or $6/gal gas or more back in the 70's (in todays dollars).

EVERYONE in trouble was living beyond their means. The rest are now suffering from trickle down economics caused by years of a previous set of failed policies which encouraged people to live beyond their means. The housing bubble is no different than the internet / dot com bubble/burst.

The difference as I see it, is the government feels compelled to help where it should likely leave things alone for once.

It's fairly evident that those with the biggest problems knew just what they were getting themselves into.

I wouldn't say this without having lived on both sides of the fence. No one was there to help me when I suffered through the recession in 92 and the hellish Clinton years! There were days I did not eat. Days, I went without with a lot of things. Days I had no idea what I was going to do next. And I only had me to support, no mortgage, no car payment, just me an apartment and a stable job.

Things are tough all over at different times. I've seen things a hell of a lot worse. I guess my initial point was to nail home the fact that the media with all things, has made this appear worse than it is.

Lets just learn to keep the crying, bitching and moaning a bit more consistent. When things are bad in one sector of the economy, they tend to boom in another. Keep in mind all that money everyone thought they had in their pockets was never there to begin with. That's something to think about when asking why people think they now have less.

Personally, having been on both ends of the spectrum, I'd rather have less money in my pocket than none.

 

People don't want to work. Less money in your pocket is better than none. I quote another post -- you are going to to work 60 hours to make the same $600 that yo were getting for 40.

People are spending more they don't have and somehow it's Bush's fault. You want another Jimmy Carter? Carter gave us a double dip recession. The aftermath was 10.7% unemployment and 20% interest rates. Think about that before you bitch about Bush. Yeah another thing. The Iranians had the US Embassy hostage and America was on the brink of a 'Red Dawn"

There's still money to be made. Energy and healthcare have money. So if you can provide services to these sectors so can a couple of bucks.

A sign of the times is that Bennigans and Steak & Ale are in chapter 7. People don't have $80 for lunch and a few beers.

Steve, the Bennigan's waiter in Plano, said he recently went from making $30 on a good lunch shift to only $10.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080729...ptcy_filing;_ylt=AocKe6.HwM2q4A9rAlA6qKWyBhIF

 

No... Those making less are working less.. I did not suggest you should work more and earn less. I've not seen people doing that. What I have seen are people in the construction sector working less or not at all... Most are collecting unemployment. They are not working any more, though I am sure they would like to.

Something, is always better than nothing.

Of course. That's the way it works. Yet people fail to realize that the failed policies of several administrations and a failed energy policy in this country is what is to blame for many of the woes experienced now.

Energy is to blame - er, well a lack of an energy policy and a refusal to find a solution to regain independence from foreign energy.

There was a great show on PBS (yes PBS of all places) last night that dealt with energy. There were some great facts thrown around about how back in the 70's, the US Government enacted MPG standards, and the automakers complied. Mileage got better. It went from an average of like 15MPG in 75' to like 22MPG in 87, but then once the SUV craze started in the 90's it dropped to around 15 again.

To get another Jimmy Carter all one has to do is vote for Obama.

Too few people here either remember or even know that there was that high of interest rates and unemployment. Carter damn near killed us, literally.

Do keep in mind that there have been a huge amount of expenditures during Bush's presidency. Much like Reagan and his large spending measures, a great deal of which was done to undo what Carter did, Bush too did to undo what Clinton did.

Clinton like Carter saved cash by cutting in places he should not have, like Carter; the Military. Our defense, and specifically intelligence and counter terrorism efforts.

Clinton also taxed the shit out of the wealthiest people and the middle class, both of which put jobs in the economy. Those gains in tax revenue for the government coffers meant a reduction in the jobs available.

Sure, there is a fuck ton of money to be made out there. All anyone needs to do is actually innovate. Aside from providing services to these sectors, creating alternatives to them by way of competition is going to drive our economy through the roof. Particularly when it comes to energy.

Funny you mention that. A friend of mine was saying how his dad was saying that the Golf Courses in our area are having a hard time. A really hard time he said.

I said, hell, I golf at the local college and public courses and pay like $24 or less for 18 holes with a cart!!! These other places charge $80 just for the golf, not including cart!!!

No wonder! Who the hell wants to spend $80 on greens fees alone? Couple this with the competition aspect. Bennigans is the past... Now its' Fridays and Chilis, and AppleB's, etc... Same goes for golf. We have like 20 courses withing a 20 mile radius of a town of 7,000 what do you expect?

[/quote]

Yeah, I found that story interesting. Hell, back in the Reagan 80's as a teenager I was making over $300 a night in tips just as a bus boy. That was at the old Playboy resort. Back in those days, rockers and celebs threw money around like it was going out of style.

Myself, I still tip 20% MINIMUM!!!! Always take care of those that take care of you. That's how they make their money.

My guess is the average ticket had dropped or the number of patrons dropped! Yeah, those were the days. Scrap the deuce for 4 tops or 6 and beyond. Get them buying bottles of wine, desert, etc, and you can make some serious cash.

Steve needs to find a Fridays or some other place! Bennigans always seemed too stuffy to me! It was pricey, which is likely what is driving many away.

 

America needs to find energy alternative as soon as they can. The problem is, they aren't really working on it.

 

The Clinton years are not as great as some people remeber. In 1995 there was a slowdown that was at recession levels. In 1998 during the Asian financial crisis Clinton bailed out the hedge funds. When you look back at it most of the economic growth was based on the 'dot com' bubble.

Greenspan knew there was a bubble and tried to talk it down. At the end of the Clinton tears, Greenspan had no choice after the 'dot com' crash but to replace it with another bubble in housing. He lowered the Fed fund rate to 1% and he we are.

 

What America needs is to do both. Find alternatives and continue to drill more of our own.

What we need is a plan. An actual energy policy that outlines what we will do over the next 50 years.

The Clinton years were horrible. Devastating for many of us. Hell, my dad lost his retirement thanks to Clinton's retroactive tax take back and capital gains hikes.

Do keep in mind, beyond all the blunders you mentioned that Clinton also financed much of his spending with 30 year treasury bonds that will come due soon. When the do.. OUCH...

The internet / dot com boom era (whatever they call it) was of course a manifestation of hot air and nothing more. Over bloated, fake figures and nonsensical numbers hyped up to make the next IPO look more and more attractive.

It was all, for the most part fake. Meanwhile, it fueled a devastated economy, during the failings of the Clinton admin.

What that moron and those that come next need to realize is that the fed can no more control inflation than the President can. The fed does not control the economy. The American worker does. Generally I tend to use the "if it ain't broke - don't fuck with it" philosophy with things. The fed should try that approach this go round as well.

Back to your earlier point about Bush being blamed for the economy. Aside from the obvious mistakes made in the previous administration, people seem to forget that the spending taking place was passed by a democratic majority in both the House and the Senate. So far, as I see it... Congress deserves credit for any and all ills, not Bush.

 

I find this funny, when the economy was doing good many of those saying now that it's not doing good that the problem was from Clinton, but it also is not up to the president, yet when it was doing good all the credit went to Bush.

Sorry but if you don't see the bias being posted you have to be blind.

 

I agree, Grim. Mia has this amazing ability to paint Bush as lilly white and point the blame on Democrats.

I'm not a big one to credit administrations as creating economic conditions. I also don't see evidence that points to America printing money as the cause of this tremendous economic downturn.

I do see several similarities between this recessionary period and the recession of the late 1980's/early 1990's. In fact, Bush off the cuff referenced it when he said something about Wall Street being drunk, or going wild, etc.

During the 1980's financial institutions went hog wild specifically investing like crazy in suburban office buildings. The major financiers were Savings and Loans and secondarily banks. During that decade more suburban office space was built than in all preceeding decades.

Every year the vacancy rate for office increased. Demand for office space was moving at a "normal clip". Supply was being added at never before rates.

S & L's were primarily able to make loans in a totally unrestricted and unsupervised basis. Inappropriate accounting policies called RAP (Regulatory Accounting Principles) were applicable. It meant that S&L's could record profits on loans made and defer losses.

This was an example of the market gone wild.

The result was that after the entire mess was cleaned up about 1,000 S&L's failed. The commercial real estate industry went into a depression, the residential real estate industry was hit secondarily, the national economy recorded a recession with multiple quarters showing negative growth.

This recessionary period sprung again from a combination of crazy financial instruments applied to real estate, this time residential. Again there were no restraints or controls on lending.

There is no precedent in the business world for innumerable loans made without any checking of credit worthiness.

All these loans got securitized and sold. The sheer volume is incredible.

It has brought down banks, destroyed financial institutions, burst into a bubble that has resulted in a utter stop on real estate activity and spread across the economy in many ways.

Again, the explosion occurred in an environment of 0 ZERO oversight of the financial institutions.

Periodically the financial institutions come up with things that result in financial developed bubbles. I've seen the commercial real estate craze, the junk bond craze and now this residential cr@p loan craze all result in overall economic downturns.

Anyone who doesn't think financial institutions don't need oversight is nuts. They should review economic history.

 

It appears that the US in in recession as the Commerce Dept. reported the economy shrank 0.2% in the last quarter of 2007. The economic stimilus checks have provided some GDP in the second quarter but Unemployment claims increased 44,000 last week to 448,000 and have surged by 100,000 in three weeks.

The recession is expected to widen in the coming months and some of the largest banks have been plugging holes by raising new capital and borrowing at the Fed discount window. What was supposed to be an emergency program has now been extended to January 2009.

The US has not faced an economic crisis this bad since the GREAT DEPRECESSION. One thing to remeber was that the great depression was an era and not a single event. Another depression can be avoided but the way we are going now it doesn't look good. On a depression timeline we are in 1928. Last year in 2007 is very similiar to how the Fed reacted to the stock bubble of the roaring twenties. We are now in a bear market and next year is 1929? Will the Fed avoid a stock market crash?

Will LEH fail? Here's an interesting interview ith Meredith Whitney, executive director of equity research at Oppenheimer, discussing what's in store for the financial sector.

Meredith Whitney predicts that the decline in housing valves will decline to between 2002 levels and 2003 levels. We are now at 2005 levels and some Markets like the New York metro are still at 2006 levels. We have a long way to go on the downside.

Bartiromo: THE FANNIE AND FREDDIE STORIES ARE INTERESTING. AND OF COURSE THIS IS THE WHOLE FOCUS OF HANK PAULSON'S HOUSING PLAN. GIVE ME YOUR THOUGHTS ON FANNIE AND FREDDIE AND WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE GOING TO SEE FURTHER SHOES TO DROP ON THAT SIDE OF THE PAGE HERE AND WHETHER OR NOT WE'VE SEEN ANY INSIGHTS IN TERMS OF THE BOTTOM BEING REACHED FOR THESE TWO. REACHED FOR THESE TWO.

Whitney: FOR FANNIE AND FREDDIE, THEY'RE IN THE SAME SITUATION AS EVERY OTHER INSTITUTION IN TERMS OF THEY ARE BETTING ON THE ASSUMPTIONS THAT THEY MADE IN TERMS OF WHERE HOUSE PRICES WOULD DECLINE. THE FUTURES MARKET SAYS THAT HOUSING WILL BOTTOM RIGHT AROUND 33% PEAK-TO-TROUGH. NOW, EVERY INSTITUTION THAT I COVER, INCLUDING FANNIE AND FREDDIE ARE ESTIMATING A FAR LESS STEEP DECLINE. AND MY POINT IS THAT A 33% PEAK-TO-TROUGH DECLINE IN HOUSE PRICES WOULD GET YOU TO A NATIONAL AVERAGE BETWEEN 2002 LEVELS AND 2003 LEVELS. WHEN HOME OWNERSHIP WAS ACTUALLY HIGHER. THAT'S MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

SO I THINK THAT THE PRESSURE FROM LOSSES FROM BAD MATH, EFFECTIVELY, IS GOING TO APPLY TO EVERYONE. THAT WILL INCLUDE FANNIE AND FREDDIE.

IF YOU LOOK AT BETWEEN 2005 AND 2007, 2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF MORTGAGES WERE SECURITIZED. SINCE 2000, 85 PERCENT OF LIQUIDITY IN THE MARKET CAME FROM THE SECURITIZATION MARKET. NO ONE INSTITUTION CAN REPLACE THAT TYPE OF VOLUME. AS A RESULT YOU'LL SEE FEWER HOMEOWNERS AND FEWER BUYERS MEANS PRICES GO DOWN.

Bartiromo: CAN LEHMAN SURVIVE THIS?

Whitney: I -- I THINK -- I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW.

complete interview transcript: http://www.clusterstock.com/2008/7/...e-the-complete-maria-bartiromo-cnbc-interview

Video:
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/07/meredith-can-lehman-survive-this.html

 

No bias. Just telling it like it is. Its reality. Just because I did not jump on the doom and gloom bandwagon does not mean I am biased.

Using your logic, those that thought the economy was good at one point credited Clinton, not Bush --- now when it has a slight down turn, they blame Bush.

The bias you purport works both ways.

Again, just telling it like it is. It's rather pointless to defend reality when anyone with eyes can see it.

I'm not pointing blame. I'm giving you reality. I specifically stated that the entire economic condition the US faces is due in most part to failed or no policies over a period of 30 years. Specifically with regards to energy. The one thing that drives our economy, literally.

You do realize that Bush was not president for the last 30 years, right???

Both sides of the isle have failed both as Presidents and Congress.

What I take issue with, and what makes some people believe that I am defending Bush is that I do not join the retard bandwagon that wants to blame Bush for all that is bad, and give credit for nothing positive.

If ever there was a "bias" that my friends is the biggest one of them all.

ENERGY... That's it, that's all... That is the one and only thing driving the economy, its what backs the currency, and its what costs the tax payers. That is is, that is all. Nothing else.

Not having an energy policy is almost entirely to blame for the current, and past economic conditions. Not the housing market, not Halliburton, not Bush, not wars... Energy.

Of course there are similarities. Energy and Excess are still at the forefront, and both still drive the economy.

Keep in mind that deregulation along with insane inflation was just as much to blame for the S&L Crisis.

Also, the US Tax payer paid for that to the tune of some 125 Billion. The resulting costs are what caused the Deficits in the 90's, not Bush (SR).

 

And all this time he calls himself a ferret......

 

It would appear that he was trying to indicate where his head is when it is not in his arse..

 

Mia:

The current financial downswing is probably primarily caused because of this statement as quoted by Bogart...

I'm pretty sure corporate debt per year is slightly higher than $1 trillion. State, municipal debt is in the annual category of hundreds of billions.

The mortgage debt represents an incredibly high number. It is not too long ago that NO mortgages were securitized. According to the person Bogart quoted.....$2.5 trillion = a crazy enormous amt of money that was packaged and sold as good investments.

As we know the crazy mortgages included many that were bad. That has created the housing/financial crisis we are facing and is the primary cause of weak financial times.

Now, no doubt add high energy costs. Oil prices have shot up during this decade and skyrocketed this past 12 months. That adds huge hurt to a weakened slowed economy wherein so much real estate and associated activity stopped. Energy costs are hitting every pocket for driving, flying, buying food that have to carry higher transportation costs, will whip our butts when winter hits and home heating costs go up, etc.

But we are facing a huge economic slowdown that resulted from the housing mess.

I believe it is very similar to the 80's/90's crisis only far bigger and more directly hitting the economy. I was a very first hand player during the 80's/90's crisis. On a micro level I saw the crappy loans being generated by 2 S&L's. Not one of them made long term financial sense. The only way they made sense was that the institutions were making fees for issuing the loans, had paybacks for a year or two during initial construction and early lease up efforts, AND the institutions were allowed utterly weakened accounting standards that allowed them to defer losses (from unperforming loans). I was the "real estate" dude for 2 medium sized S&L's, did all their property leasing and sales or purchases of property for the operating units and got to sit in on some loan origination sales for new office buildings.

Having sold land for office buildings and knowing both costs and market conditions I knew that none of the loans panned out under then current conditions. The only way value would occur would have been if the market had changed and rent skyrocketed.....or (that good ole ponzi belief--the developers could sell the buildings). Everyone believed sales were easy and doable. Prices were skyrocketing and during the 80's Japanese money and secondarily European money was EVERYWHERE.

It is so much like this subprime mortgage crisis that has hit the US. I suspect that a lot of that $2.5 trillion over 2 years represents huge amounts of subprime mortgages written. They represent absolutely crap credit reviews (or none) and teaser rates with huge increases. The fault on that lies everywhere.....BUT....volumes of loans should be monitored.

GE is an enormous conglomerate with an incredibly large and widespread credit entity. That watch and monitor their activities like a hawk.

When the feds stop watching this stuff it goes out of whack. It happened with the commercial real estate crash in the 80's/90's. It happened with the junk bond crash in the 90's and it happened this decade with subprime mortgages.

Why can a huge conglomerate like GE watch its lending business all the time and adjust it all the time and be consistently one of the great profit makers over time.....but big business tells the feds......stay off our backs, don't tell us what to do, don't monitor or watch us, don't regulate us....etc. etc. etc.

Its primarily business lobbying tied to certain mindset that tells the government to stay out of our hair....when unregulated...the market representing thousands or millions of decision makers always want to make a fast buck.

The aggregate impact of the "fast buck" mentality in unregulated financial markets that are gigantic continue to haunt us and blow up in our faces in financially generated economic downturns.

You call in "deregulation" in the 1980's. Here is generally what happened. High inflation, high interest rates in the late 70's early 80's were killing the entire S&L industry because their entire business was issuing home mortgages and holding them. They were earning 7,8,9,10% on loans and being forced to borrow at 12-15%.

The govt allowed them to enter the commercial real estate lending world and a few others and gave them some other bennies. The government essentially stopped watching them in the 1980's.

A couple of thousand S&L's entered new a new business, hired several thousand loan officers with no track records or credit standards, money was free and easy.....and they started making loans like it was going out of style. Credit requirements dropped to crap.

Of interest you reference a $120-125 billion bailout. That represented backing up the federal guarantee on individual accounts in the failed S&L's. It secured federally insured deposits.

You don't want federally insured bank deposits.....come up with a system that will establish a safe but relatively low paying way to save money and assets. I can assure you without guarantees....interest rates will skyrocket.

Of the "bailout" an additional $25 billion was supplied by the S&L and banking industries. Meanwhile about $500 billion of S&L assets in total went belly up. So in total Feds and banks supported $150 billion in guaranteed deposits and $350 billion in financial assets went ffft.

Now we are no doubt getting killed by high energy costs, especially harmful in the last 1 year or so.

I agree with you on one item. We should take every step under the sun to stop buying oil from the mideast. I think you said it well one time, referrring to high gasolene prices financing the explosive bomb jackets of terrorists. I agree.

Meanwhile even if we cut back like crazy SOB's on gas purchases....the demand for gas is going to continue to skyrocket. Friggin China currently has a situation where about 4% of the population owns cars....(which takes the US back to like the 1900-1910's. Think of that growth. China wants more cars. They are subsidizing the price of gas to their customers. Meanwhile an Indian company is developing a $2500 car to run on gas. They are going to suck up gas also as time goes on.

So even if we cut back on buying gas the demand is going to grow over time at some clip.

We have lots of choices; drill for oil domestically, develop wind power, nuclear power, biofuels, convert cars to electric or biofuels.

All these things can have some impact. I primarily don't buy into the drilling arguments. Brazil has made 2 large finds in this decade, one in the early years, announced around 2003. That field won't deliver probably till 2011. They made a potentially huge huge find more recently. Who the hell knows when delivery will take place. They are both off shore. Frigging expensive to get them up and running. Meanwhile as Brazil made their huge finds...there were no drops in oil prices. The psychology argument is bunk.

I'd be looking like a madman at electricity from other sources like wind, nuclear, etc. and I'd be looking at biofuels big time. Frigging figure it out without political folks getting in the middle. Get science involved. Don't give away the house to Iowa corn farmers for biofuel because of the farm lobby and because Iowa votes first in the political primaries. Frigging Brazil is moving out of oil importing because they have a massively growing biofuels methodology based on sugar cane.

As bad as energy costs are though, the current economic crisis in the US came about because of the mortgage mess. Its massively bigger than the earlier financial crises like the junk bond and commercial real estate messes. Also its impact is far more direct. You own a house with a subprime mortgage and the interest rates shoot up after the teaser rate ends.....you are screwed. Can't sell or refi the house anymore because home rates are falling...and lending requirements got tougher.

Boom you lose your house. That is VERY DIRECT. doesn't get much more direct. Meanwhile real estate is generally the industry that creates the most money velocity/economic activity within the nation. Buy a house..=> buy furniture, lawn mowers, stuff to fix up the house, etc. Hire contractors to build and fit out the house, etc. All that activity has hit a brick wall!!!

Secondly all that extra cash floating around from people taking out 2nd's on their houses...which they then spent....BOOM/Brick wall....its not available anymore. All that spending just took a dive.

Meanwhile there is one other aspect to this whole thing that doesn't get much press. There is still a lot of economic activity going on. During the 90's while the commercial real estate markets and then the junk bond thing hit, hi tech was growing. It really wasn't the dot com boom. It was the overall telecom industry in many many many facets. The PC industry, software, networking all boomed during that decade.

There are a good number of reasonably healthy sectors of the economy right now. They are doing fine. Some are experiencing growth. Those aspects will carry a weakened economy for a period as we work through the real estate crisis.

Now is Bush at fault at all. My opinion is that his administration aggressively decided to not oversee financial institutions at all. I think that is cr@p based on decades of problems with recessions caused by financial institutions gone wild.

At this point in time there is more data suggesting better abilities to monitor activity than at any time in the past. Huge institutions monitor their lending very well. Again I give the example of GE Credit. I'd watch the institutions closely. I think its a stupid argument to allow them to do anything at any time without oversight.

Its like letting the foxes in the chicken coop! Whoooooeeee!

 

I loved your whole analysis (it was long so didn't quote the whole thing). You have a lot of experience and insight on this.

Back in the late 80s/early 90s, in the local business magazine, there were pages and pages of new suburban office developments under construction. It was mind blowing seeing all these gleaming new towers being built.

I always thought, where are all these new businesses which are supposed to occupy these offices. I certainly didn't see any increase in hirings, so it seemed odd at the time.

Your explanation covers what was happening, so thanks for that.

My only issue is with regulation. Whenever the government gets involved, they create this huge, UNNECESSARY bureaucracy, with jobs, budgets, cars, payroll, offices, and the like to justify their existence.

Instead of relying on the government for regulation and oversight, why not have civic-minded private citizens (elected, let's say) monitor these private businesses, at their own cost?

Giving more power to individuals, rather than the government, always is a winner in my book.

 

Bring on Great Depression 2.0.

 

There will be no Great Depression 2.0 anytime soon.

Oh, unless Obama is president. In which case, we'll get the guy that 50% of this nation is being fooled into believing that he can change things, when really he's flip-flopped on every single political stance he's ever taken thus far in his campaign.

Not too much of a change, to me...

Before you bash the heck out of me... Want to know my vote for the upcoming election?

I'm writing in Stephen Colbert.

 

lol, all bad things stem from Obama

since he pretty much has the election in the bag, I guess we should be bracing for the depression