Worst Since Depression: No End in Sight

Democrats in Congress refuse to take a position on the scramble for primacy in the financial debacle, arguing that the problem was caused by Bush's adminstration and Republican dogma.
Meanwhile, the situation worsened overnight, with an emergency loan of $200 billion pledged by the world's largest banks and indications that the there may be more bad news on the horizon.
The Christian Science Monitor suggests that while Congress wants an accounting of the decisions that led to the collapse of the global economy, the emphasis on the Hill now seems to be longterm, with a focus on the overhaul of regulatory structures.
The Wall Street Journal traces back the financial wipeout to events thirteen months ago and labeled this week's mega-failures "a far more serious phase."
The consequences for companies and chief executives who tarry -- hoping
for better times in which to raise capital, sell assets or acknowledge
losses -- are now clear and brutal, as falling share prices and fearful
lenders send troubled companies into ever-deeper holes.
The Journal quotes Mark Gertler. a New York University economist, who said:
"This has been the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.
There is no question about it, but at the same time we have the policy
mechanisms in place fighting it, which is something we didn't have
during the Great Depression."
With household lending increasing 11% over a four-year span, what we're witnessing now, the Journal claims, is the "deleveraging, or the winding down of debt."
The New York Times gets down and dirty with specifics, but it boils down to a credit crunch; even the world's largest financial institutions are wary of loaning each other funds given the possibility of default.
Kenneth S. Rogoff, the former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund,
said the United States would have to spend 5 to 10 times more than it
has already on bailouts, an amount closer to $1 trillion to $2
trillion.
But as the New York Times reports:
“We still expect huge volatility and more negative surprises,” said
Matthias Jasper, head of equities at WGZ Bank in Dusseldorf. “Fasten
you seat belt.”
- FILED UNDER: Finance, Economy, Wall street
- September 18, 2008








Suddenly, McCain is who he wasn't. Go figure.
So, how will the McCain disconnect himself from the fact that he has been the Chairman of the Commerce Committee for the last 7 years and Phil Graham has been the Chairman of the Banking Committee? McCain never met a regulation he liked.
Now he is trying to go from 26 years of de regulation to someone who is "regular".
Of course, McCain said he was no expert on the economy. Well, the economy is not like the Forrestal. No wait, maybe it is. If you crash and burn, it will sink.
Oh well, never mind.
Tis true. He of the gelatinous conviction finds life all too
confusing. And, where's his invisibility cloak? Stalking the wily moose no doubt.
As the seed is planted so grows the tree
Sorry but I've been saying this is a Depression for months now!
Of course many poo poo'd me.
And McCain is Herbert Hoover. (As per Paul Krugman.)
At this point, we need FDR type reforms to keep this country from sinking into the 7th level of Hell!
A prediction for you. Please a prediction is not based on facts. So I can't give you articles as references.
A McCain/Palin administration means a deep Depression for the US that spreads to rest of the world.
Remember you heard it here.
CoyoteMan
We don't need "FDR-type" reforms....
just bring back the FDR reforms that were gutted by the repub congress, including McCain and Gramm. McCain may aspire to be the next Herbert Hoover, but this has all happened under Bush's watch, so he is the current Hoover.
There are two big whammies on the way. First, as a number of economists have pointed out, the subprime crisis was just the first wave. Over the next 1-2 years, the next round of A loans will begin defaulting, and there are more of them than there were subprimes. In addition, US credit card lenders have noticed that credit card defaults are beginning to rise, following the trend that started in the UK a year or two ago. It is expected that there will be massive losses there too.
So how do we fix all this? Almost everything I have read is about how we can prevent it from happening again in the future, but there is almost nothing about how we can fix the current problems, beyond using taxpayer money to bail out the corporations involved. Why do you think that is? Because, simply put, there are no viable solutions. As I have seen detailed elsewhere, we recovered from the Great Depression primarily because of the manufacturing boost from WWII wartime production, and the fact that we actually produced the materiel needed for the war. Today, we don't make much of anything. We are primarily a service economy. Too much manufacturing has moved overseas. So, even if we had something on the scale of WWII that required us to push the economy forward with wartime production, we couldn't make the stuff ourselves, and therefore, we wouldn't see the economic benefit from it.
So, what are the consequences. Well, for one, we are seeing the old adage "When the US sneezes, the world gets a cold" in action. We are dragging down world financial markets with our troubles, and causing economic problems around the world. Everyone is going to suffer for a while. However, after the painful readjustments, the world will discover something important: they don't need the US. For years, China and others have financed our overspending with the purchase of dollars and Treasury bonds. It was in their interest, as it helped their economies, as we used that money to buy their exports. With our economic system falling apart, we will be buying less of that, and it will create repercussions in their economies for a few years. Eventually, they will manufacture to a level comensurate with what can be purchased by the rest of the world, instead of producing to meet the irresponsible spending habits of America. Once they are down to that new adjusted level, they won't need to sell to America to keep their economies going strong; hence, they will have no incentive to keep propping us up financially.
It'll be a great story to tell the grandkids someday. How we grew up in the richest, most powerful nation in the world, and how we participated in destroying it with greed and irresponsibility, leaving us as a second world, or perhaps, a third world nation. It's coming my friends, and about all we can really do is to try to do the best for our families and friends, and hope that the new world order, whatever it may be, will not be too unkind to us. I'm not holding my breath on that one.
Repost: I want this seen.
"Kill-Whitey" (how's THAT for a racist, inflamatory screen name?) started statistically quibbling over my assertion that the abyss between the " haves" and "have nots" is now the widest in our history...
My response:
====================
Anecdotal Statistics = Sophistry
The statistics in your first link are accurate and intended by this liberal site to send up a red flag. However both you and the site are missing the larger picture.
True, in 2005 the top 1% garnered 20% of all "income"... Fine... no argument.
But here's the deal:
1) "Income" is almost certainly defined by the "gross adjusted income" statistics provided by the IRS.
Those 1% people typically pay maybe 12% of their income in taxes... frequently less... Somewhere, there's a McCain-supporting, NASCAR-loving white dude TARRING ROOFS in the blistering Nevada sun PAYING MORE THAN TWICE THAT, who's losing his sense of humor because his productivity goes up while his wages go down.
He's wondering "Where's all the money going??"... Interestingly, the bastards that have fucked him over all his life might say in their faggy corporate-speak: "Where's all the ADDED VALUE going??".
I'll tell you where it's fucking going... RIGHT INTO THE POCKETS OF THE CORPORATE EXECUTIVES THAT DRIVE INVESTMENT BANKS INTO BANKRUPTCY OR TAXPAYER GUARENTEED "SOCIALIZED LOSSES", THAT'S WHERE IT'S FUCKING GOING!
... and you're busting MY balls about suggesting that people might take up arms??... Get real... Read a fucking history book.
I DO NOT advocate that by any means, but that is what happens historically... I believe in regulated social capitalism BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT HISTORY SHOWS US DOES THE GREATEST GOOD FOR THE MOST CITIZENS.... You know... United We Stand??... Remember that?
2) This has been going on FOR OVER A GENERATION... When 1% of the population sucks up 40% of all GDP profits (...20%?? - Pfft!!... Remember all those tax shelters and the labor-free "capital gains" income!)... When 1% of the population sucks up 40% of all GDP profits YEAR AFTER YEAR AFTER YEAR...
Guess what. They own everything and you have nothing... HA!!... SUCKERS!!
You know... Like "compound interest"... YOU do the math.
===============================
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." - Lincoln's First Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1861.
===============================
VOTE FOR BARAK OBAMA ON NOVEMBER 4TH
Public Service Announcement
If you have an ASU parking permit, then you will need to read this memo from ASU parking and transit:
You're welcome...
LOL
Gee, no comments from Snottie, our self-proclaimed
economic genius? Maybe she found a great view from a ledge on a tall building overlooking Wall Street!
By UffdaguySeptember 18, 2008 - 2:34pm
The right wingers wish they could claim Bill Clinton as one of theirs. They have to spin this mess by saying the stock market now is about where it was when Bush took office*. But they have to ignore the fact that the DJIA went from around 3500 to over 10k under Clinton's watch.
*This is crap too because the value of the dollar is not what it was when Bush took office by a long shot. And it's not just a market that didn't gain under Bush. It's foreclosures, government bailouts, etc.
SPEAKING OF IllumiNUTTY...
Illuminutty uncharacteristically SPAMMED this forum by posting essentially the same message four times.
She did this with the RED HERRING that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made small donations to Democrats... But we'll get to THAT later...
Illuminutty hoped voters would ignore that Republicans are behind the quarter century of deregulation that has allowed corporations to act like common criminals and brought yet another financial collapse upon us... each one worse than the one before.
Illuminutty hoped voters wouldn't know that it was PHIL GRAMM, John McCain's ECONOMIC ADVISOR (You know - the guy that said we were a "nation of whiners" because we finally started to squawk about being fucked up the ass)...
...Illuminutty hoped voters wouldn't know that it was PHIL GRAMM that wrote the legislation that repealed the the Glass-Steagall Act AND ALLOWED COMBINATIONS of Investment Banking, Commercial Banking, and Insurance Services THAT RESULTED IN THE CURRENT MELTDOWN.
======================
Oh yes... Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac making small donations to Democrats...
It's true. Over his career, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made donations to Obama of $105,000... But here's the deal:
OBAMA MADE OVER 500 TIMES THAT AMOUNT IN CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS JUST LAST MONTH!... MOSTLY IN SMALL DONATIONS FROM AVERAGE FOLKS LIKE YOU AND ME... Illuminutty's wacky notion that Obama was bribed IS AS SILLY AS IT IS DESPERATE.
HEY NUTTY!!... Republicans like John McCain have been the champions of GREED DRIVEN DE-REGULATION FOR A GENERATION AND EVERYBODY KNOWS IT!!
EVEN "LOW-INFORMATION" VOTERS KNOW IT!
========================
Check out John McCain's top economic advisor Phil Gramm... No wonder McLame says our economic fundamentals are strong (Ooops! - By fundamentals I meant our slaves - I MEAN WORKERS!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NVjq2py7BA
By A GSeptember 18, 2008 - 4:01pm
Got another one for ya!
See this thread:
http://airamerica.com/comment/edit/485037
I posted an article last night about a bombing of a US Embassy in Yemen. A US citizen from NY state was killed in the blast with her fiance. I titled my post something like: "But I thought Bush was keeping us safe". I did this not because I believe any president can keep us 100% safe and nothing like this would ever happen under a democrat. I posted that title because of the ridiculous spin that Bush and other republicans are supposedly the ones that will save us from terrorists but look what just happened!
Illuminutti's response was that Bush IS keeping us safer because the attack was in Yemen and that is FAW AWAY fom here.
I then pointed out that in the past she has argued that the bombings of embassies in Africa under Clinton's watch led to 9/11 because Clinton was weak. Yet 9/11 happened here, on Bush's watch while Clinton did exactly what she is saying; he kept the attacks FAW AWAY.
Now she is reduced to calling me a "little man" LMAO
Yes, Hottie seems different lately.
Less pointless barbs and more desperate, panicky issue-spinning.
I can't tell if it's because her stock portfolio is going down or her Vodka comsumption is going UP.
By A GSeptember 18, 2008 - 5:09pm
Surely you know that the non-luminous one is an Ayn Rand reading socially aspiring plaything for a now unemployed Wall Streeter. She is delusional. She’s thinks she understand the knowledge her sugar daddy betrayed.
I hope she and the rest of the trolls have figured out that the
bailout given to AIG is just one step short of nationalizing them, as the US government now has a 79.9% interest in it. Sounds kind of socialistic to me!
TO BUNDLE MONEY
.
My understanding is a little bit different. They did donate to Obama. However, the total was $126,000, but the companies only donated $6000.
How is that possible? Where did the 120,000 come from? It's quite simple. For many companies, the employees get together and "pool" their money. It's actually referred to as "bundling". The money came from many employees either contributing or holding fundraisers, and then "bundled" the money into one contribution. That is why it seems like so much. The company I work at does the exact same thing.
When it's announced a certain company "paid" x amount of dollars, it's a source of pride for the employess.
Yup, mighta been bundled individual contributions.
"That is why it seems like so much."
But my whole point is this... It's NOT that much.
In fact it is LESS than a teeny-weeny drop in a VERY big bucket. OBAMA MADE OVER 500 TIMES THAT AMOUNT IN CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS JUST LAST MONTH!...
Illuminutty's wacky notion that Obama was bribed IS AS SILLY AS IT IS DESPERATE.
WHERE IT ALL COMES FROM
Since everyone is speaking of contributions, perhaps they might want to read this "Factcheck" article. I would say it's "illuminating".
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_is_the_average_size_of_obamas...
No, she is probably reading Das Kapital for the first time.
And finding out that the Reds are actually right.
how can you be...
the Chairman of the Commerce Committee and not know SOMETHING about finance and the economy? How do you do that?!?!?! Just by being at a few meetings you'd have to learn SOMETHING right? RIGHT?!?!
Unless you are a complete fucking toadstool.
Beau Friedlander
Just a guest or will Beau continue to post here?
Buffet's rules in action
Stars Align for Warren Buffett
The veteran value investor has swooped in on Constellation Energy Group, the natural-gas and power company that lost more than half its value this week. MidAmerican Energy Holdings, part of Berkshire Hathaway, has thrown Constellation a lifeline in the form of a tentative $26.50-a-share takeover offer.
...
MidAmerican is paying $4.7 billion for the common equity, taking a $1 billion preferred interest and assuming $4.8 billion of net debt. For that, it gets nearly 9,000 megawatts of electricity plants, 1.7 million customers, natural-gas reserves and the energy-trading book.
The cost to unwind that book is anyone's guess. Dan Eggers, an analyst at Credit Suisse, posits a preliminary figure of $2 billion. Even then, Mr. Buffett is getting Constellation at a phenomenally good price.
Property, plant and equipment were valued at a net $10.4 billion at the end of June. Replacement cost would be much higher and almost half the generation fleet consists of very desirable, low-emissions nuclear and hydroelectric plants.
WSJ