NationStates Jolt Archive

http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/01/news/economy/recession/?postversion=2008120115

The National Bureau of Economic Research said Monday that the U.S. has been in a recession since December 2007, making official what most Americans have already believed about the state of the economy .

The NBER is a private group of leading economists charged with dating the start and end of economic downturns. It typically takes a long time after the start of a recession to declare its start because of the need to look at final readings of various economic measures.

The NBER said that the deterioration in the labor market throughout 2008 was one key reason why it decided to state that the recession began last year.



So much for the right wing "we're not in a recession!" bullshit.

Bolded is also something that will prevent all the same right wing nutjobs from claiming it was "all teh Clintonz fault!11!"

Bolded is also something that will prevent all the same right wing nutjobs from claiming it was "all teh Clintonz fault!11!"

Oh, KoL, you're so naive about the ability of neocons to ignore reality it's even endearing.

So much for the right wing "we're not in a recession!" bullshit.


You mean "so much for my massive strawman".

http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/01/news/economy/recession/?postversion=2008120115



So much for the right wing "we're not in a recession!" bullshit.

Bolded is also something that will prevent all the same right wing nutjobs from claiming it was "all teh Clintonz fault!11!"

Recession 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth in the GDP

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hqgI1HyOUSxlxybZmnjJH-H0bqVw

The second quarter showed growth, the third shows a negative......2 consecutive quarters.

Learn to use the proper terminology.

You mean "so much for my massive strawman".

You apperantly havnt been paying attenting.

Recession 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth in the GDP

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hqgI1HyOUSxlxybZmnjJH-H0bqVw

The second quarter showed growth, the third shows a negative......2 consecutive quarters.

Learn to use the proper terminology.

Im quoting what the article says. It says we're officially in a recession.

Your contempt for me and your eagerness to knee jerk insult me just shows you didnt read the article.

EDIT: In fact, since I quoted the part of the fucking article that says flat out that they believe we'e in a recession, I believe you didnt even read the OP. You just saw "Recession", my name by the OP, and jumped in here to take a shot at me. How sad.

I'm more inclined to believe The National Bureau of Economic Research than I am a stilted "classical" definition of a recession.

I'm also more inclined to believe what I'm seeing with my own two eyes, not to mention the fact that I'm one of the millions of unemployed now.

We've been in an economic downturn since at least the middle of 2007. I'd have called it a Panic. We've definitely been in a recession of confidence.

You apperantly havnt been paying attenting.


Care to show me where the right wing have denied we're in a recession? Also, how on earth can the right wing be both blaming Clinton for the recession, and claiming the recession doesn't exist?

Recession 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth in the GDP

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hqgI1HyOUSxlxybZmnjJH-H0bqVw

The second quarter showed growth, the third shows a negative......2 consecutive quarters.

Learn to use the proper terminology.

Generally, if NBER says it is a recession then it is (they use the definition "a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP growth, real personal income, employment (non-farm payrolls), industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales." Recession can be any contraction in the economy, though, the one you mention is one of the most common

Well, Graham-Leach-Bliley was passed in 1999, and the improper execution of that bill played a major role in both the 2001 and 2007- recessions, and the Democrats have long been staunch opponents of any attempts to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, so they're hardly innocent in this situation. However, the Republicans were in control of the Congress from 1994-2006 and the entire government from 2001-2006 and did nothing but further loosen regulations appoint cronies and turn a blind eye to a growing problem, so they're also at fault.

That being said, they aren't the ones to blame for this. It was greedy homeowners that lived too far beyond their means, dishonest lenders that preyed on the poor with misleading and downright manipulative practices (many of whom were also at fault for disregarding good sense in favor of greed) and companies that disregarded sound business practices and responsible accounting in order to paint a better picture for investors.

Actually, pretty much every group can be blamed in one way or another, and the blame doesn't stop at the US border. It is a worldwide phenomenon that has perpetrators and victims in every major economy.

Im quoting what the article says. It says we're officially in a recession.
Your source isn't using the correct word for what is going on. Recession has a definition.
Your contempt for me and your eagerness to knee jerk insult me just shows you didnt read the article.
I have no contempt for you. I did read the article.

Care to show me where the right wing have denied we're in a recession? Also, how on earth can the right wing be both blaming Clinton for the recession, and claiming the recession doesn't exist?

Im not going to reiterate recent history to you. I know how you are on this forum, and Im choosing not to fight this battle, its not worth it.

So, you can either believe me, or believe its a strawman. Everyone else knows its not, so what you believe is irrelevent.

Technically, if NBER says it is a recession then it is (they use the definition "a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP growth, real personal income, employment (non-farm payrolls), industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales." Recession can be any contraction in the economy, though, the one you mention is one of the most common

If you point out the flaws in her "arguement", she cant attack me and try and insinuate that Im an idiot now, can she?

Your source isn't using the correct word for what is going on. Recession has a definition.

I have no contempt for you. I did read the article.



Generally, if NBER says it is a recession then it is (they use the definition "a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP growth, real personal income, employment (non-farm payrolls), industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales." Recession can be any contraction in the economy, though, the one you mention is one of the most common


This. Im inclined to believe the NBER as well. A recession has many guises. You just appear to only count the most common.

The second quarter showed growth, the third shows a negative......2 consecutive quarters.

That's a somewhat archaic, or more accurately less popular, definition that has been discarded in favor of defining recession as a "major interruption in trend economic growth". This is for one big reason: productivity.

You see, the rapid growth in productivity over the past two decades means it is very difficult to see the kind of continuous contraction that characterized earlier recessions. Economic conditions may be as bad, but due to that growth it can paint a picture of GDP as increasing even as other indicators decline. Even more perversely, if employment contracts at a faster rate than output, productivity will increase because the remaining employees are doing more work per capita. So, if output remains constant and employment decreases by 2%, you'll have an increase in productivity; this would translate to a pretty significant spike in unemployment and would likely drag down GDP, but this is actually far from guaranteed in the modern economy.

You apperantly havnt been paying attenting.



Im quoting what the article says. It says we're officially in a recession.

Your contempt for me and your eagerness to knee jerk insult me just shows you didnt read the article.

EDIT: In fact, since I quoted the part of the fucking article that says flat out that they believe we'e in a recession, I believe you didnt even read the OP. You just saw "Recession", my name by the OP, and jumped in here to take a shot at me. How sad.

You need to calm down a bit, bub.

You need to calm down a bit, bub.

I am calm. I am an aggressive person by nature, so my posting will seem aggressive, but just because I am aggressive doesnt mean Im foaming at the mouth.

And the fact that Smunkee is bent on painting me as an idiot is just annoying.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/01/news/economy/recession/?postversion=2008120115

So much for the right wing "we're not in a recession!" bullshit.

Bolded is also something that will prevent all the same right wing nutjobs from claiming it was "all teh Clintonz fault!11!"

Oh KoL I am sure that if the American economy had been experiencing consecutive quarters of negative economic dowturn then the government would have been saying it earlier. Though funny about how it is all the right wing that is saying it their entire collective hive mind has been saying it.

As for your bolded part what is the cause of the "deterioration in the labor market throughout 2008" what caused that KoL. The article mentions "But it is widely accepted that the housing downturn, which started in 2006, is a primary cause of the broader economic malaise." Now if this caused it you are able to blame Clinton for partof the problem not all, just like the nut jobs of the left can't say it is all Bush's fault as much as they want to. Some of the blame can be attributed to Bush, some to Clinton, some to the regulators around the world, some to other governments such as Brown's and some to the banks themselves.

I am calm. I am an aggressive person by nature, so my posting will seem aggressive, but just because I am aggressive doesnt mean Im foaming at the mouth.

And the fact that Smunkee is bent on painting me as an idiot is just annoying.

There is an ignore function, you know? If someone is persistent in giving you trouble, just ignore that poster.

That's a somewhat archaic, or more accurately less popular, definition that has been discarded in favor of defining recession as a "major interruption in trend economic growth". This is for one big reason: productivity.

You see, the rapid growth in productivity over the past two decades means it is very difficult to see the kind of continuous contraction that characterized earlier recessions. Economic conditions may be as bad, but due to that growth it can paint a picture of GDP as increasing even as other indicators decline. Even more perversely, if employment contracts at a faster rate than output, productivity will increase because the remaining employees are doing more work per capita. So, if output remains constant and employment decreases by 2%, you'll have an increase in productivity; this would translate to a pretty significant spike in unemployment and would likely drag down GDP, but this is actually far from guaranteed in the modern economy.


Again, see, when you point out shes wrong, its harder for her to make me look foolish. Dont kill that for her.


Anyway, on topic, what does everyone think the implications are for this, now that a big name economic group has come out and confrimed what the sane among us always new.

Care to show me where the right wing have denied we're in a recession? Also, how on earth can the right wing be both blaming Clinton for the recession, and claiming the recession doesn't exist?

If it's people wanting to take a swing at the right and Bush et. al. it doesn't have to make sense.

Of course those on the right do the same thing as well.

There is an ignore function, you know? If someone is persistent in giving you trouble, just ignore that poster.

I hate using the ignore fucntion for anyone but those with a god-complex. I have two people on it (had three, I took one off after the election).

Again, see, when you point out shes wrong, its harder for her to make me look foolish. Dont kill that for her.

She's not technically wrong; that definition is still used, but is not as common because it is based on an older economic structure, mainly the economic situation in the 1960's and 1970's (and earlier).

Oh KoL I am sure that if the American economy had been experiencing consecutive quarters of negative economic dowturn then the government would have been saying it earlier. Though funny about how it is all the right wing that is saying it their entire collective hive mind has been saying it.

As for your bolded part what is the cause of the "deterioration in the labor market throughout 2008" what caused that KoL. The article mentions "But it is widely accepted that the housing downturn, which started in 2006, is a primary cause of the broader economic malaise." Now if this caused it you are able to blame Clinton for partof the problem not all, just like the nut jobs of the left can't say it is all Bush's fault as much as they want to. Some of the blame can be attributed to Bush, some to Clinton, some to the regulators around the world, some to other governments such as Brown's and some to the banks themselves.

True, there is a lot of blame to go around. The blame with Clinton lies in the naivety that by opening up the housing market to the poor like he did, it wouldnt lead to predatory practices. The blame with Bush lies in deregulation. The blame with the banks likes in their economic practices.

And no, the rights not a hive mind, but when theyre leaders like Bush and McCain say it, its an attack that is legit to make.

She's not technically wrong; that definition is still used, but is not as common because it is based on an older economic structure, mainly the economic situation in the 1960's and 1970's (and earlier).

Oh, I know shes not wrong, but I also know that there are more ways to define a recession than the one she mentioned.


Anyway. What are the implications?

Anyway, on topic, what does everyone think the implications are for this, now that a big name economic group has come out and confrimed what the sane among us always new.

It may just lead to people being even more tighter with their wallets leading to further decline in economic growth. It depends on the expectations of the people, it also depends on what the government has already started in order to alleviate the process. I understand the government has already been injecting money into the economy so that will help it slightly.

Anyway. What are the implications?

Well, for one, inflation is no longer a concern and the commodities bull market has now ended. With any luck, this will be like 1980-1982 in that the aftermath triggered a long period of exceptional prosperity and stable inflation, although we can't know for sure until it's over.

Anyway, on topic, what does everyone think the implications are for this, now that a big name economic group has come out and confrimed what the sane among us always new.

I'm not entirely sure there are ramifications. Considering that most people have known, and have been acting as though we have been in a recession since wall street crashed, I can't see that a big name econ group straight-out saying it will make much difference with the people as a whole. If anything, it will add to the problem, by sending more people into the "OH NOES RECESSION, CANT SPEND ANY MONEY WHATSOEVER" mindset, and giving them an excuse to skip the "Wait a second, Markets need money to work" part of the thought process.

I do feel, however, that it does lend some weight to the argument against the Bush/McCain/General Right Wing "markets correct themselves, everything is perfectly fine" thing.

True, there is a lot of blame to go around. The blame with Clinton lies in the naivety that by opening up the housing market to the poor like he did, it wouldnt lead to predatory practices. The blame with Bush lies in deregulation. The blame with the banks likes in their economic practices.

And remember that it isn't just in America or the American government, the British government's poor regulation policy and the break up of the regulators responsibilities to different regulator groups is a direct cause for the inability for Northern Rock to be able to remain a viable. And considering that under Clinton there was deregulation too he would also be able to take some blame for that as well.

And no, the rights not a hive mind, but when theyre leaders like Bush and McCain say it, its an attack that is legit to make.

Well really the attack should be on the government then, after all the 'right' can take people from various different belief systems it wouldn't really be fair to attack those on the right who have been saying that America and the world is experiencing an economic downturn.

I hate using the ignore fucntion for anyone but those with a god-complex. I have two people on it (had three, I took one off after the election).

Why do I feel like a shoe just fit?

I do feel, however, that it does lend some weight to the argument against the Bush/McCain/General Right Wing "markets correct themselves, everything is perfectly fine" thing.

Well the market would correct itself, over time we will see a turn around of economic growth and begin to see an upturn of the market. Now the government will begin doing things that can rectify it, such as increase spending and/or decrease taxes as well as relaxing monetary policy (though the US doesn't have far to go before it hits 0%). But if left to its own devices the market would correct itself eventually, it may be worse than with government intervention it may be longer (it may not be too) but it would correct itself.

Why do I feel like a shoe just fit?

No. You dont have a god complex.

No. You dont have a god complex.

Good thing you just said that, I was preparing to turn you into stone. :p

Well the market would correct itself, over time we will see a turn around of economic growth and begin to see an upturn of the market. Now the government will begin doing things that can rectify it, such as increase spending and/or decrease taxes as well as relaxing monetary policy (though the US doesn't have far to go before it hits 0%). But if left to its own devices the market would correct itself eventually, it may be worse than with government intervention it may be longer (it may not be too) but it would correct itself.

Not arguing that, what I'm arguing is the assumption that because the market will, at some undiscernible point in the future, correct itself, we should leave it alone. Everything is self correcting to a point, but, to use an analogy, it's better to take medication for a cold, and feel better, no matter how slightly, than to say "colds aren't fatal, our bodies are self-correcting, intervention isn't justified," and feeling like shit all through work/school/panhandling/saving the world/whatever each one of you personally does during the day.

I'm more inclined to believe The National Bureau of Economic Research than I am a stilted "classical" definition of a recession.

I'm also more inclined to believe what I'm seeing with my own two eyes, not to mention the fact that I'm one of the millions of unemployed now.

We've been in an economic downturn since at least the middle of 2007. I'd have called it a Panic. We've definitely been in a recession of confidence.

I'm not entirely sure there are ramifications. Considering that most people have known, and have been acting as though we have been in a recession since wall street crashed, I can't see that a big name econ group straight-out saying it will make much difference with the people as a whole. If anything, it will add to the problem, by sending more people into the "OH NOES RECESSION, CANT SPEND ANY MONEY WHATSOEVER" mindset, and giving them an excuse to skip the "Wait a second, Markets need money to work" part of the thought process.

I do feel, however, that it does lend some weight to the argument against the Bush/McCain/General Right Wing "markets correct themselves, everything is perfectly fine" thing.
Pretty much ditto on the above two quotes. Right now, I think the economy has a momentum that we can brace ourselves for and try to minimize the impact of, but which we cannot check or change. I think the only effect of the NBER's announcement will be to get those last few holdouts for "free market" optimism to finally put on their figurative life jackets.

I think the only effect of the NBER's announcement will be to get those last few holdouts for "free market" optimism to finally put on their figurative life jackets.

Can you clarify this?

Can you clarify this?
Probably not.

I meant that it would encourage some corporations and some politicians to stop arguing against new regulatory efforts, as well as encouraging private citizens and companies to take proper economic precautions if they haven't yet.

I think this is a perfect example of how market economics follows the self-fulfilling prophecy phenomenon. If you scream (and more specifically, have news media corporations and pundits scream) constantly about how the economy is terrible, just terrible, eventually it'll have an effect. I don't congratulate the people who "knew" there was a recession before for being right - on the contrary, they are amongst those partially responsible for it.

I think this is a perfect example of how market economics follows the self-fulfilling prophecy phenomenon. If you scream (and more specifically, have news media corporations and pundits scream) constantly about how the economy is terrible, just terrible, eventually it'll have an effect. I don't congratulate the people who "knew" there was a recession before for being right - on the contrary, they are amongst those partially responsible for it.
To quote Blouman Empire: Can you clarify that?

(That's a polite version of wtf.)

Probably not.

I meant that it would encourage some corporations and some politicians to stop arguing against new regulatory efforts, as well as encouraging private citizens and companies to take proper economic precautions if they haven't yet.

Well perhaps, though companies have already been experiencing these effects and should have already taken precautions. Where as the arguing may stop a bit if some of those regulatory practices are indeed going to help the economy.

To quote Blouman Empire: Can you clarify that?

(That's a polite version of wtf.)

Confidence begets confidence, lack of confidence begets lack of confidence, capital builds capital, poverty increases poverty, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer... any of that make sense?

My point is that people don't, for example, rush to the bank to withdraw all their money based on whether or not it is actually unsound to have money in the bank. They do so because they believe it is. And, predictably, this winds up causing economic difficulties, because of the way the banks and markets are built on fiat currency and confidence - not on some mythical, inherent and objective value (like the labor theory of value or some such nonsense). Hence it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's like going in to take a test telling yourself constantly, "I'm gonna fucking fail!" Chances are you will have lower results if you believe you will.

To quote Blouman Empire: Can you clarify that?

(That's a polite version of wtf.)

I think he is talking about people's expectations and how they react to those expectations. If people expect the economy to be going down the tube and things getting tougher than they will begin to act like it is such as limiting their spending, this will in turn cause an economic downturn which will make these predictions true. Same thing does occur with inflation if people expect inflation to be high then they will demand higher wages this in turn will force companies to raise prices which means an increase in inflation which will see more people wanting higher increase in wages. Though wages and prices are sticky whereas expectations in regards to spending and demand are less sticky and so can have a greater effect over a shorter amount of time. It is one of the problems with our PM who goes around telling us this is the worst recession we have had since the Great depression, it doesn't help as people start believing that and act to suit as if it is which doesn't help the economy.

And when I asked you to clarify Mur it wasn't a wtf? I was just wondering what you were trying to say.

Hmm. I think it was pretty clear NZ was going through a recession a few months ago. Not too sure when/if it was 'officially' announced. When lots of the finance companies crashed and house prices fell, most people were able to be forecast bad times ahead.

KoL, when you ask what the implications are, do you mean implications of the announcement itself? If so, I don't know if it would have that big of an impact. By now most people have altered their spending habits.. It just confirms what many already suspected.

Confidence begets confidence, lack of confidence begets lack of confidence, capital builds capital, poverty increases poverty, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer... any of that make sense?

My point is that people don't, for example, rush to the bank to withdraw all their money based on whether or not it is actually unsound to have money in the bank. They do so because they believe it is. And, predictably, this winds up causing economic difficulties, because of the way the banks and markets are built on fiat currency and confidence - not on some mythical, inherent and objective value (like the labor theory of value or some such nonsense). Hence it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's like going in to take a test telling yourself constantly, "I'm gonna fucking fail!" Chances are you will have lower results if you believe you will.
Yeah, except of course that there have not been any runs on the banks, even though some banks have failed. Nor has the market actually crashed. Yet.

So, no, actually, your statement does not make any sense. It seems to boil down to "don't tell the patient he's sick, and he won't be sick." I don't buy that at all.

And when I asked you to clarify Mur it wasn't a wtf? I was just wondering what you were trying to say.
I was indicating that I was using your polite question to mask my skepticism at what he had just said. I did not mean to make a characterization of you at all. Sorry.

Yeah, except of course that there have not been any runs on the banks, even though some banks have failed. Nor has the market actually crashed. Yet.

The bank run was just an example of how easily the market is effected by outlook.

So, no, actually, your statement does not make any sense. It seems to boil down to "don't tell the patient he's sick, and he won't be sick."

No, it's "don't tell your patient he's sick if he isn't, because the reverse placebo effect could negatively affect his health."

Well, it's more like basic economics, but yeah. Analogy-land.

I was indicating that I was using your polite question to mask my skepticism at what he had just said. I did not mean to make a characterization of you at all. Sorry.

That's cool.

But I would say expectations does play apart in what people will do in the future, if they think that things are going to get tough in the future then they will change their spending habits to suit, this will have an impact on production which will mean that a recession is on the way. If they think inflation is going to be high then they will demand more pay, this will cause prices to rise which means they think they were right in expecting it.

The bank run was just an example of how easily the market is effected by outlook.
Only it doesn't actually give any evidence that outlook ALONE is what cause bank runs. And without any such evidence, or even a hint at same, it gives me no reason to think it is anything but an unsupported and baseless opinion.

No, it's "don't tell your patient he's sick if he isn't, because the reverse placebo effect could negatively affect his health."

Well, it's more like basic economics, but yeah. Analogy-land.
A bad analogy, though, because although the placebo effect is strong, it's not THAT strong. I do not believe anybody with a real disease ever imagined themselves to perfect health with no other intervention, by their natural immune system and/or medical treatment, nor do I believe that anyone in perfect health ever imagined themselves into a collapse or death without having an actual illness.

And I suspect that healthy economies don't collapse just from an insufficient optimism level, either. If our economic systems had not been dysfunctional and failing to begin with, I do not believe a perception of hard times would have taken hold enough to get people to pull out of the markets just out of fear of a bogeyman.

So, no, actually, your statement does not make any sense. It seems to boil down to "don't tell the patient he's sick, and he won't be sick." I don't buy that at all.

There is something to it though...

From an economic point of view, the more freaked out people are about the recession, the more they engage in behaviors which perpetuate recession. The market needs money to run properly, but whenever the market is running badly, people freeze personal spending, therefore making the market run increasingly poorly, making people freeze personal spending, and on and on until either something kick-starts the market, or we all go down in a giant ouroboros of self-perpetuating financial hell...

Like I said earlier, the "OH NOES RECESSION GOTTA STOP SPENDING" is a reflection of outlook, and is a very poor way of dealing with the problem.

The solution is not one of "don't tell the patient he's sick", but one of telling the patient possible ways in which they could strive to get better, instead of telling them there's no hope.

That's cool.

But I would say expectations does play apart in what people will do in the future, if they think that things are going to get tough in the future then they will change their spending habits to suit, this will have an impact on production which will mean that a recession is on the way. If they think inflation is going to be high then they will demand more pay, this will cause prices to rise which means they think they were right in expecting it.
My point is that people generally do not start to expect things to get bad until they have already started to get bad in a way that strongly suggests a trend. Because of that I say reality drives expectations, not the other way around. Do pessimistic expectations add to a snowball effect of a bad trend? Yes, they probably do, but they do not affect it so much that it will not eventually turn around the way such trends normally, historically do. The same goes in reverse for optimistic expectations attached to positive trends. That's my position on the question and why I reject the argument that those who predicted this downturn based on the dysfunction of our economic systems deserve some blame for the reality of the downturn. It was the dysfunction of the systems that caused the downturn, not the people who tried to blow the whistle on them a while back.

There is something to it though...

From an economic point of view, the more freaked out people are about the recession, the more they engage in behaviors which perpetuate recession. The market needs money to run properly, but whenever the market is running badly, people freeze personal spending, therefore making the market run increasingly poorly, making people freeze personal spending, and on and on until either something kick-starts the market, or we all go down in a giant ouroboros of self-perpetuating financial hell...

Like I said earlier, the "OH NOES RECESSION GOTTA STOP SPENDING" is a reflection of outlook, and is a very poor way of dealing with the problem.

The solution is not one of "don't tell the patient he's sick", but one of telling the patient possible ways in which they could strive to get better, instead of telling them there's no hope.
Please see my post #48 in response to Blouman for a response to this as well.

My point is that people generally do not start to expect things to get bad until they have already started to get bad in a way that strongly suggests a trend. Because of that I say reality drives expectations, not the other way around. Do pessimistic expectations add to a snowball effect of a bad trend? Yes, they probably do, but they do not affect it so much that it will not eventually turn around the way such trends normally, historically do. The same goes in reverse for optimistic expectations attached to positive trends. That's my position on the question and why I reject the argument that those who predicted this downturn based on the dysfunction of our economic systems deserve some blame for the reality of the downturn.

Oh I wasn't blaming them for the cause of the downturn or realy any downturn but really saying that expectations does have an effect on the continuation and extent of any downturn. And it doesn't help for people in the public eye to spread fear and exxagerate how bad an economic downturn is, such as my PM.

Only it doesn't actually give any evidence that outlook ALONE is what cause bank runs.

It doesn't need to be the sole cause to be a major cause.

And without any such evidence, or even a hint at same, it gives me no reason to think it is anything but an unsupported and baseless opinion.

Evidence? Is this a trial? This is an economic discussion and looking for cold, hard and fast answers is a futile exercise... for either of us. Yes, this is my opinion, I'm not ashamed of that. But baseless? No. The bank runs are an example and remain an effective one of what I'm talking about.

A bad analogy, though,

It was your analogy. I don't see a so-called recession as a "sick patient" nor do I see political analysts as the would-be doctors to make diagnoses in the first place.

because although the placebo effect is strong, it's not THAT strong. I do not believe anybody with a real disease ever imagined themselves to perfect health

This is what's known as a strawman. I never claimed the placebo effect an do any such thing as restore perfect health. But go find me a doctor who supports harping on the patient's illness and discouraging thoughts of getting better, or optimism. And then when the patient gets worse, go "Aha! SEE! I WAS RIGHT LOL!"

nor do I believe that anyone in perfect health ever imagined themselves into a collapse or death without having an actual illness.

If you believe you're going to die, you'll die a lot easier than if you didn't.


And I suspect that healthy economies don't collapse just from an insufficient optimism level, either.

Never said that was necessarily always the case.

If our economic systems had not been dysfunctional and failing to begin with, I do not believe a perception of hard times would have taken hold enough to get people to pull out of the markets just out of fear of a bogeyman.

When that perception is generated and consistently reported by the mass media of the 21st century?

Maybe the economic system is dysfunctional or flawed. Certainly some see all this as an argument in favor of gold standard currency systems, for example. Or for the abolishment of capitalism. I don't, but those arguments are beside the point.

Glenn Beck (mainstream right-wing commentator) has been warning of an economic collapse for some time. Alex Jones (conspiracy theorist libertarian) has been warning of an economic collapse for years. Mark Koernke (militia commentator of the non-racist variety) has been warning of a coming collapse for years. Ron Paul has been warning of dangers in the banking system and overall economy for years. Pray tell, what "Right Wing" other than the Bushite neocons ("We put the 'con' in neocon!") has been saying the economy was strong?

The troubles are far bigger than either Bush or Clinton, and Obama ain't gonna be able to fix it. You're going to need to look a lot deeper than partisan bickering to find the root source of the rollercoaster system we're stuck with for now.

Glenn Beck (mainstream right-wing commentator) has been warning of an economic collapse for some time. Alex Jones (conspiracy theorist libertarian) has been warning of an economic collapse for years. Mark Koernke (militia commentator of the non-racist variety) has been warning of a coming collapse for years. Ron Paul has been warning of dangers in the banking system and overall economy for years. Pray tell, what "Right Wing" other than the Bushite neocons ("We put the 'con' in neocon!") has been saying the economy was strong?


Oh please. Those dipshits were only warning of it, not because of evidence, but because not everyone was worshipping at the free market alter, and they feared that it would smite us. Something about a blind squirrel and a nut.

The troubles are far bigger than either Bush or Clinton, and Obama ain't gonna be able to fix it. You're going to need to look a lot deeper than partisan bickering to find the root source of the rollercoaster system we're stuck with for now.

What, prey tell, is the solution?

Wait, youre a libertarian, I know what it is. And youre wrong.

What, prey tell, is the solution?

Wait, youre a libertarian, I know what it is. And youre wrong.

No he isn't wrong. It isn't the best solution because it will mean the the economy will be worse and longer lasting than with the government, but he isn't wrong as it will fix the problem.

No he isn't wrong. It isn't the best solution because it will mean the the economy will be worse and longer lasting than with the government, but he isn't wrong as it will fix the problem.

We're not talking about "the solution", we are talking about "the best solution", because thats the only one thats relevent.

I thought thatd be obvious from the discussion. Apperantly some are oblivious.

Oh I wasn't blaming them for the cause of the downturn or realy any downturn but really saying that expectations does have an effect on the continuation and extent of any downturn. And it doesn't help for people in the public eye to spread fear and exxagerate how bad an economic downturn is, such as my PM.
I know you weren't. The person I was responding to was, however.

Knights of Liberty, you want to tone it down. You are not attacking the arguments, you are attacking posters here.

It doesn't need to be the sole cause to be a major cause.
Except that you have failed to show that it is a major cause.

Evidence? Is this a trial? This is an economic discussion and looking for cold, hard and fast answers is a futile exercise... for either of us. Yes, this is my opinion, I'm not ashamed of that. But baseless? No. The bank runs are an example and remain an effective one of what I'm talking about.
The bank runs that didn't happen?

Your admission that it is impossible for you to provide evidence from, oh, say, the news to back up your assertions is not surprising and is really all I need to know about your argument.

Also, you started by laying some blame for the CURRENT downturn on people who predicted that it would happen. You can't now claim that bank runs that have not happened and are not happening CURRENTLY are evidence of the outlook effect you claim those people caused.

And yes, I used that scary word "evidence" again.

It was your analogy. I don't see a so-called recession as a "sick patient" nor do I see political analysts as the would-be doctors to make diagnoses in the first place.
Now that you see that you can't make it work, you want to fob it back onto me? Sorry, that won't wash, either. I made the analogy to show how your argument DOESN'T work. YOU then tried to switch it around to show how it does work, but you failed.

This is what's known as a strawman. I never claimed the placebo effect an do any such thing as restore perfect health. But go find me a doctor who supports harping on the patient's illness and discouraging thoughts of getting better, or optimism. And then when the patient gets worse, go "Aha! SEE! I WAS RIGHT LOL!"
Well, apparently, you would know all about strawmen, since you posted a pretty nice one right here. Or rather, I guess this is a different kind of fallacious argument -- a false dichotomy perhaps?

It is not true that the only two choices are between lying to the patient about his condition and relentlessly harping on the hopelessness of his situation and his imminent and unavoidable death and then cheering when he worsens. That's just bullshit.

If you believe you're going to die, you'll die a lot easier than if you didn't.
I believe absolutely that I'm going to die. In fact, I know for a fact that I'm going to die. I know for a fact that you're going to die, too. Someday. And yet, I don't feel at all ill. Do you?

And again you fall back on a false argument. There is a big difference between believing you are going to die of a illness and knowing the truth about one's illness -- including the truth that, while it may get worse before it gets better, it very likely will not kill you as long as you take proper care of it.

Just like knowing what is going wrong with an economy =/= abandoning that economy to an expected inevitable collapse.


Never said that was necessarily always the case.
No, you just chose to blame some vague group of people for it as if it were the case this time, even though you apparently have no reason to think that it is.

When that perception is generated and consistently reported by the mass media of the 21st century?
Yeah, it's called reporting the news. You know, the mass media of the 20th century reported that stuff, too, and I believed they did so as far back as the 19th century even. In fact, I've heard rumors -- though these may be just legends -- that even in the 18th century people kept track of what happened to their money and how much it was worth.

Maybe the economic system is dysfunctional or flawed. Certainly some see all this as an argument in favor of gold standard currency systems, for example. Or for the abolishment of capitalism. I don't, but those arguments are beside the point.
You're right, they are completely beside the point.

Except that you have failed to show that it is a major cause.


And you've failed to show it isn't. Look, this began when you wanted me to clarify my position. You didn't seem to understand it, hence the WTF, and so I have clarified it.

The bank runs that didn't happen?

As I mentioned the first time, they were an example to illustrate the concept you didn't seem to comprehend.

Your admission that it is impossible for you to provide evidence from, oh, say, the news to back up your assertions is not surprising and is really all I need to know about your argument.

Evidence from the news? OK, you need me to go show you some evidence of a news source foretelling coming economic hardships. I think you can do that yourself.

I wasn't aware that we were having an argument. What is the point you are arguing then? Your thesis statement was essentially "WTF?" Maybe you could clarify what you meant, if not asking me to further explain my opinion. (Which you've attacked as just being an opinion, as opposed to what, your opinion which is the 11th Commandment from God? I never claimed my opinion was anything other than my opinion.)

Also, you started by laying some blame for the CURRENT downturn on people who predicted that it would happen. You can't now claim that bank runs that have not happened and are not happening CURRENTLY are evidence of the outlook effect you claim those people caused.

Bank runs are precisely an example of the outlook effect. Bank runs have happened throughout history and they invariably worsen the effect on the economy. And bank runs happen for the reason I have stated. Outlook.

And yes, I used that scary word "evidence" again.

It'd kind of a meaningless term. You're asking me to provide "evidence" for basic concepts while taking on the attitude of a condescending prosecutor. Not so much scary as bafflingly aggressive.

Now that you see that you can't make it work, you want to fob it back onto me? Sorry, that won't wash, either. I made the analogy to show how your argument DOESN'T work. YOU then tried to switch it around to show how it does work, but you failed.

Your analogy compared the economy to a patient, and thus the people 'diagnosing' the 'patient' (foretelling economic doom). That analogy doesn't work, and it's all yours.

Well, apparently, you would know all about strawmen, since you posted a pretty nice one right here. Or rather, I guess this is a different kind of fallacious argument -- a false dichotomy perhaps?

Now I think you're just throwing out Big Debating Terms like some sort of missile barrage spam, hoping one will get through even if the others don't.

It is not true that the only two choices are between lying to the patient about his condition and relentlessly harping on the hopelessness of his situation and his imminent and unavoidable death and then cheering when he worsens. That's just bullshit.

It is undoubtedly true that harping on the hopelessness and coming hard times and trouble and then gloating about it when the 'prediction' comes true is not something we want from 'doctors.'

I believe absolutely that I'm going to die. In fact, I know for a fact that I'm going to die. I know for a fact that you're going to die, too. Someday. And yet, I don't feel at all ill. Do you?

I don't, but then again, you're not the mass media hammering a message into my head and the heads of everyone I know for months and months. Nor are you in a position where your statements affect me the way a doctor's would. And the fact that people are mortal is quite different from a guess about the future direction of the economy.

There is a big difference between believing you are going to die of a illness and knowing the truth about one's illness -- including the truth that, while it may get worse before it gets better, it very likely will not kill you as long as you take proper care of it.

Just like knowing what is going wrong with an economy =/= abandoning that economy to an expected inevitable collapse.

Nice strawman. But the effects of a patient's outlook on his own health, to his recovery or general health, are pretty well documented.

No, you just chose to blame some vague group of people

Ah, yes, quite unlike the OP blaming "right wingers," which is so exceptionally specific!

Yeah, it's called reporting the news. You know, the mass media of the 20th century reported that stuff, too, and I believed they did so as far back as the 19th century even.

Predictions about future events are not news. They are predictions about future events. And broken clocks are wrong twice a day, and I've seen no evidence whatsoever that you or KoL "diagnosed" the "patient" and "knew" for a "fact." I see a lot of egotistic trumpet blowing and not much else on your end. Meanwhile you're seeming to think things like bank runs are not evidence that outlook can have a direct effect on the economy and it's impossible, in this case, to isolate that factor from any other.

Hence why I said "partially responsible" in my initial post, while you are apparently saying "not at all responsible lol wtf that can't happen."

In fact, I've heard rumors -- though these may be just legends -- that even in the 18th century people kept track of what happened to their money and how much it was worth.

I heard rumors that a bank run caused by a negative outlook on the economy may have had something to do with this thing called the Depression, but like my opinion, there's not a ton of legal evidence for it. There is Google but I'm guessing that's tainted.

You know...Im probably in the minority here...But, being that ive got pretty good job security...and that Gas/Diesel prices have been slowing eating our family away....

I think we should not only embrace the recession, but actively try and keep it going....Burn the Stockmarket to the ground...I think the elimination of these mega corporations and the Lowering of the Fuel prices will be a sure bet for prosperity in the long term...for the Majority of Americans anyway...

Haven't we been in a recession since 2002? Oh wait, that's just Michigan, never mind :(

Haven't we been in a recession since 2002? Oh wait, that's just Michigan, never mind :(

2002? Shit, you guys have been wobbly since the early 80's...

2002? Shit, you guys have been wobbly since the early 80's...

Much of the 90s was really good to us. We had lower unemployment and higher growth than the rest of the US. However, when the US went into a downturn after the 9/11 attacks we never came out of it.

Much of the 90s was really good to us. We had lower unemployment and higher growth than the rest of the US. However, when the US went into a downturn after the 9/11 attacks we never came out of it.

Yeah, if I recall you got a boost from the SUV boom in particular, since they're almost entirely made in the US (or were...).

We're not talking about "the solution", we are talking about "the best solution", because thats the only one thats relevent.

I thought thatd be obvious from the discussion. Apperantly some are oblivious.

Well you know me KoL I'm oblivious to everything but myself :p

Bolded is also something that will prevent all the same right wing nutjobs from claiming it was "all teh Clintonz fault!11!"

QUICK THEN! Let's...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Llgunu-FlX4&feature=related

The bank runs that didn't happen?

Not to jump in the argument with someone else again, there were a few bank runs in America as a result of this crisis.

Countrywide Financial Corp had one. http://www.latimes.com/business/printedition/la-fi-countrywide17aug17,0,5944637.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-business

Indy Mac http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/12/business/12indymac.html?_r=1

Washington Mutual http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/26/business/fi-wamu26

There have been a few bank runs within America and a few outside of America as well also problems. What this means to his argument I don't know I wil have to go over it properly to see if it does give it any weighting or wether it is just some info. I am pretty sure there have been a few more Wachovia also springs to mind as well as a massive run on Bear Sterns.

Yeah, if I recall you got a boost from the SUV boom in particular, since they're almost entirely made in the US (or were...).

That helped in addition to the easy credit people were purchasing new vehicles with.

Still, I'm confident we'll pull through this. We found something new when furs, lumber and then mining collapsed, we'll find something else this time as well. Of course, I may spend a few years overseas while the economy sorts itself out.

And you've failed to show it isn't. Look, this began when you wanted me to clarify my position. You didn't seem to understand it, hence the WTF, and so I have clarified it.
I don't have to. You made the assertion, the burden of proof is on you to back it up. Since you have already admitted that you are not able to, then your only option at this point, really is to stop fighting about it.

As I mentioned the first time, they were an example to illustrate the concept you didn't seem to comprehend.
And as I mentioned the first time, and which you seem to be deliberately ignoring, they are a failed example for two reasons, both of which are fatal to your argument:

1) You have failed to show the connection between bank runs and negative public perception. As I have said repeatedly, it is likely true that such a connection exists, BUT I dispute your claims as to how important it is compared to other factors, AND YOUR INABILITY TO SHOW THE CONNECTION MEANS THAT YOU ARE UNABLE TO DEFEND YOUR OWN ARGUMENT. (caps used to bring certain parts of the statement to particular attention.) You cannot just assert that something exists, point to something you claim is the end result of it, and expect to be believed. You have to connect the dots, and you have not done so.

2) Bank runs are utterly and completely IRRELEVANT to the topic at hand because they are NOT HAPPENING NOW. You are the one who set the parameters of this discussion by assigning some blame to a group of people in regards to the CURRENT CRISIS. You cannot carry your point of accusing them of having an effect by pointing to an effect that you only claim existed and which, even if it did, existed in an entirely different time, an entirely different crisis, and with an entirely different set of players. You don't get to blame THESE people for what THOSE people did -- especially as you can't prove any of this happened the way you say it did anyway.

Evidence from the news? OK, you need me to go show you some evidence of a news source foretelling coming economic hardships. I think you can do that yourself.
Again, you're the one making assertions, so the burden is on you to lay out the facts that make you think that what you say happened actually did. If you claim that people expressing negative economic views in the "mass media of the 21st century" fed this crisis, then you obviously must have observed some connection that shows expressed views leading directly to real economic downturn. And if you did not see it in the news, then surely you must have seen it somehwere. Post a link so we can all see it, please, thanks.

Also, I notice you seem to be pooh-poohing the notion that the news could contain forecasts of economic troubles, yet you yourself earlier challenged my objections to you by pointing out that negative views have been spread repeatedly in the "mass media of the 21st century." Hm, contradict yourself much? Which is it -- do we get our dire forecasts from the news or don't we?

Look, here's what happened: You claimed that negative forecasts had a certain effect in fact. I challenged you to show any kind of evidence of such a connection -- any expert analysis, any reports from reliable agencies, anything -- and I suggested you might look at the news (just a suggestion for starters) so that you wouldn't keep trying to refer to the Great Depression of the 1930s when we're talking about the CURRENT recession of the 2000s.

Now if you can't find evidence of that connection in the news, I suggest the reason for that is that it is not there. And if you can't find it anywhere else, then I would be inclined to conclude that it cannot be found anywhere.

I wasn't aware that we were having an argument. <snip the rest of it because why bother?>
Then you need to pay attention, friend.

The rest of your "points" basically are nothing but a catalogue of the usual bad tactics resorted to by those trying to carry bad arguments, including you apparently not knowing what the word "evidence" means; you apparently not knowing the difference between a statement of personal opinion and an assertion of fact (you did and have been doing the latter, not the former); you apparently being shocked -- SHOCKED! -- that I would ask you to back up an assertion of fact with evidence that what you say is true, and then reject said assertions when you fail to back them up; you apparently trying to move your goalposts by first making a statement about the current crisis and now claiming that you were always just talking about economic effects in general, which is patently not true and the thread record is evidence of that; you apparently not reading my statements or else misrepresenting them as evidenced by you apparently missing or ignoring the fact that I have said repeatedly that public perception DOES have an effect, just not the one you are claiming; and finally, inevitably, you apparently falling back on personal attacks against your opponent rather than focusing on the substance of the argument.

I decline to respond to those "points" on the grounds that there is nothing to them.

Not to jump in the argument with someone else again, there were a few bank runs in America as a result of this crisis.

Countrywide Financial Corp had one. http://www.latimes.com/business/printedition/la-fi-countrywide17aug17,0,5944637.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-business

Indy Mac http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/12/business/12indymac.html?_r=1

Washington Mutual http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/26/business/fi-wamu26

There have been a few bank runs within America and a few outside of America as well also problems. What this means to his argument I don't know I wil have to go over it properly to see if it does give it any weighting or wether it is just some info. I am pretty sure there have been a few more Wachovia also springs to mind as well as a massive run on Bear Sterns.
There were a few nascent hints at bank runs early in the crisis, but none of the banks that have failed did so in a way connected to a bank run or the cause of a bank run. Also, public perception has failed to pick up a momentum of fear that would cause bank runs on banks that were not already in trouble, which would be required for that negative perception to be a contributing force to the whole downturn, as opposed to a momentary reaction to the troubles of a particular institution.

In the 1930s, the fear that the banking system was unstable caused runs on banks that were not even in trouble yet, and that caused those banks to get into trouble, thus contributing to the spread of the crisis. That has not happened this time. At least not in the US.

Mur, I contend that giant green space monkies are masquerading as the world leaders in an elaborate plot to turn us into slaves for the banana mines of Rigel 7.

Your failure to prove that they are not giant green space monkies proves that they are.

Mur, I contend that giant green space monkies are masquerading as the world leaders in an elaborate plot to turn us into slaves for the banana mines of Rigel 7.

You know too much.

*Makes a few calls*

That helped in addition to the easy credit people were purchasing new vehicles with.

Still, I'm confident we'll pull through this. We found something new when furs, lumber and then mining collapsed, we'll find something else this time as well. Of course, I may spend a few years overseas while the economy sorts itself out.
Obviously, we'll get out of this crisis. Probably our economic systems will be even stronger and better than they are now. But it will not come quickly, and the interim is not going to be a lot of fun. But oh, well, we'll just have to learn to live on the cheap. As someone who has always been technically poor but still managed to live comfortably, I'm not that worried. I'm not looking forward to it, by any means, but I'm not sitting here saying, "whatever shall I do????"

Mur, I contend that giant green space monkies are masquerading as the world leaders in an elaborate plot to turn us into slaves for the banana mines of Rigel 7.

Your failure to prove that they are not giant green space monkies proves that they are.
Heikoku will settle your hash, my blabbermouthed friend. :D

I dispute that those were bank runs in the sense that the vast majority of deposit holders sought to withdraw their funds all at more or less the same time, which is what a "bank run" actually is, especially a bank run driven by public perception.

Come on Mur they were bank runs when you have depositors taking out $16.5 billion over a short period of time in the case of WaMu it is a run. Now as for perception I don't know about WaMu, or countrywide though in the case of Countrywide where the phones are jammed and the branches are flooded by people wanting to withdraw all of their money that is what you would expect to see in a bank run

But in regards to Indy Mac according to the article I cited, the reason for the bank run where $1.3 billion was taken out by depositors over a few short days was because of depositors had seen a letter by a Senator that was talking about how poor it was and that it may soon collapse and that the regulators pinpoint this as to the reason why depositors ran on the bank and wanted to withdraw their money due to their perception that the Senator was right and it scared the depositors, that was their perception and why all of a sudden Indy Mac saw a large amount of their investors rush to get their money out of the bank ASAP.

Heikoku will settle your hash, my blabbermouthed friend. :D

Hush... :p

Obviously, we'll get out of this crisis. Probably our economic systems will be even stronger and better than they are now.

This is the part that confounds me.

The market will find a new level, if no remedy action is taken. Yes. But we can fix some of the worst effects quicker if we treat the problem.

But the economy will not be 'stronger' or 'better'.

Sure, for a few years after recession, the profit margins will probably be higher, the ROI will be greater, all those financial markers will bounce right on back... maybe even higher...

...but it is a mistake to think that means the economy is strong or good - and it's unfortunately a popular way to view it.

Boom/bust economy is neither strong nor good. It is inherently unbalanced, recession is inevitable, because it's a harmonic system - and we're trying to break the wave, by chasing the peaks as high as they'll go, and then acting surprised when there's a trough on the other side. Every time.

If we want a 'good' economy, we should be breaking the model - using the peaks top level the troughs, and aiming for a line that is almost straight, but trending upwards.

Come on Mur they were bank runs when you have depositors taking out $16.5 billion over a short period of time in the case of WaMu it is a run. Now as for perception I don't know about WaMu, or countrywide though in the case of Countrywide where the phones are jammed and the branches are flooded by people wanting to withdraw all of their money that is what you would expect to see in a bank run

But in regards to Indy Mac according to the article I cited, the reason for the bank run where $1.3 billion was taken out by depositors over a few short days was because of depositors had seen a letter by a Senator that was talking about how poor it was and that it may soon collapse and that the regulators pinpoint this as to the reason why depositors ran on the bank and wanted to withdraw their money due to their perception that the Senator was right and it scared the depositors, that was their perception and why all of a sudden Indy Mac saw a large amount of their investors rush to get their money out of the bank ASAP.

In the case of WaMu and Countrywide, at least, it's not appropriate to really refer to the problems as bankruns, because that suggests that there wasn't really a problem until people reacted.

Come on Mur they were bank runs when you have depositors taking out $16.5 billion over a short period of time in the case of WaMu it is a run. Now as for perception I don't know about WaMu, or countrywide though in the case of Countrywide where the phones are jammed and the branches are flooded by people wanting to withdraw all of their money that is what you would expect to see in a bank run

But in regards to Indy Mac according to the article I cited, the reason for the bank run where $1.3 billion was taken out by depositors over a few short days was because of depositors had seen a letter by a Senator that was talking about how poor it was and that it may soon collapse and that the regulators pinpoint this as to the reason why depositors ran on the bank and wanted to withdraw their money due to their perception that the Senator was right and it scared the depositors, that was their perception and why all of a sudden Indy Mac saw a large amount of their investors rush to get their money out of the bank ASAP.
As usual, BE, you are taking one point of context and creating confusion with it. I am going to try to get you back on track:

1) Trostia made a claim that negative public perception sparked by negative economic forecasts was a major contributing factor to the current crisis.

2) He cited bank runs in general as evidence (though he doesn't know what that word means) of the effect that public perception has on an economy.

3) I challenged him to show that bank runs have had this effect in the current crisis.

4) He has failed to show that effect in the current crisis.

5) You have failed to show it, too, because regardless of what runs there may have been on any given institution, you cannot show that those runs were sparked by general public perception of the economy or the economic system as opposed to real problems with the given institution, nor that a run on one bank prompted a run on any other bank as would be required for public perception to be having the effect Trostia claims, nor that any bank that failed did so in a way connected to either a run or something that might have caused a run.

6) I admit that my wording of "bank runs that did not happen" was overbroad and would be unclear when taken out of context, as you have taken them. What I meant was that his proposed scenario of bank runs has not happened in the current crisis, and I do not think that the facts you have presented undermine my statment.

Are we clear now?

In the case of WaMu and Countrywide, at least, it's not appropriate to really refer to the problems as bankruns, because that suggests that there wasn't really a problem until people reacted.

Well a bank run doesn't mean that the problem didn't occur untill people did decide to take money out. Now in the case of WaMu a growing concern on the viablity of the bank led to the run, the same with country-wide with people not wanting to lose their money (despite FIDC insured) and ran on the bank to get their money out. These were bank runs and while I know Mur and the other poster (whose names escapes me) was talking about perceptions these three runs did happen, as well as others such as Wachovia, Bear Sterns and other outside of the US such as Northern Rock, various investment banks in Australia and an Icelandic bank whose name escapes me.

This is the part that confounds me.

The market will find a new level, if no remedy action is taken. Yes. But we can fix some of the worst effects quicker if we treat the problem.

But the economy will not be 'stronger' or 'better'.

Sure, for a few years after recession, the profit margins will probably be higher, the ROI will be greater, all those financial markers will bounce right on back... maybe even higher...

...but it is a mistake to think that means the economy is strong or good - and it's unfortunately a popular way to view it.

Boom/bust economy is neither strong nor good. It is inherently unbalanced, recession is inevitable, because it's a harmonic system - and we're trying to break the wave, by chasing the peaks as high as they'll go, and then acting surprised when there's a trough on the other side. Every time.

If we want a 'good' economy, we should be breaking the model - using the peaks top level the troughs, and aiming for a line that is almost straight, but trending upwards.
A) I am talking about a longer period of time than most people talk about on such topics. I am talking about at least one decade, maybe more. I am not talking about things getting better than horrible just at the point of turnaround.

B) I am also not talking about boom and bust cycles, though I do not believe those are avoidable no matter what model we use.

C) You will also notice, I hope, that I said nothing at all about WHAT systems we might have that would be better and stronger, only that OUR sytems will likely be better and stronger, whatever they may turn out to be twenty or thirty years from now.

I think you made an assumption about what you thought I was assuming.

In the case of WaMu and Countrywide, at least, it's not appropriate to really refer to the problems as bankruns, because that suggests that there wasn't really a problem until people reacted.
Yes, precisely, that is my point, thanks.

Well a bank run doesn't mean that the problem didn't occur untill people did decide to take money out.

Suggest =/= mean.

It's something of a loaded phrase, because it suggests culpability.

As usual, BE, you are taking one point of context and creating confusion with it. I am going to try to get you back on track:

1) Trostia made a claim that negative public perception sparked by negative economic forecasts was a major contributing factor to the current crisis.

2) He cited bank runs in general as evidence (though he doesn't know what that word means) of the effect that public perception has on an economy.

3) I challenged him to show that bank runs have had this effect in the current crisis.

4) He has failed to show that effect in the current crisis.

5) You have failed to show it, too, because regardless of what runs there may have been on any given institution, you cannot show that those runs were sparked by general public perception of the economy or the economic system as opposed to real problems with the given institution, nor that a run on one bank prompted a run on any other bank as would be required for public perception to be having the effect Trostia claims, nor that any bank that failed did so in a way connected to either a run or something that might have caused a run.

6) I admit that my wording of "bank runs that did not happen" was overbroad and would be unclear when taken out of context, as you have taken them. What I meant was that his proposed scenario of bank runs has not happened in the current crisis, and I do not think that the facts you have presented undermine my statment.

Are we clear now?

Yes and as I said in the post where I showed various runs, I did say that it wasn't going to prove his argument but I did really just do it to show that there were indeed bank runs, (I am sure he knew this but didn't know where to start to look and so gave up). It wasn't really to undermine your statement and I do want to go pthrough his posts roperly to see what he is saying and see if he has anything correct, though perceptions can (and it doesn't apply to the current crisis) have an effect on the economy and the financial system if one collapses and regulators don't take correct measures it can cause systemic instability it is why the Basel Accord and its various amendments recommend guidelines for exactly this reason because it can lead to systemic instability within the financial system which if it collapses will have great effects on economy as a whole.

A) I am talking about a longer period of time than most people talk about on such topics. I am talking about at least one decade, maybe more. I am not talking about things getting better than horrible just at the point of turnaround.


In another decade, there'll be another recession. In twenty years, still another. Maybe more, the bubbles seem to pop quicker.

Recession is inherent in our economic model.


B) I am also not talking about boom and bust cycles, though I do not believe those are avoidable no matter what model we use.


Of course they're avoidable. If we (collectively) didn't try to rape the shit out of every peak, stretch it as far as possible and squeeze every dollar out of it, it might dip, but it wouldn't crash.

If we took the profit margin from the market peak and applied it to the 'cost' of the trough - rather than treating the recessions like they are a different animal, unrelated to boom we were just riding, and that we're surprised to see looming - then the boom/bust model would flatten. But we don't do that.


C) You will also notice, I hope, that I said nothing at all about WHAT systems we might have that would be better and stronger, only that OUR sytems will likely be better and stronger, whatever they may turn out to be twenty or thirty years from now.


We currently show no real trend towards different systems, and what little movement there is - is away from stronger, better economy.


I think you made an assumption about what you thought I was assuming.


I assumed you were saying the economy will get better and stronger. It won't.

Obviously, we'll get out of this crisis. Probably our economic systems will be even stronger and better than they are now. But it will not come quickly, and the interim is not going to be a lot of fun. But oh, well, we'll just have to learn to live on the cheap. As someone who has always been technically poor but still managed to live comfortably, I'm not that worried. I'm not looking forward to it, by any means, but I'm not sitting here saying, "whatever shall I do????"

I wasn't talking about the financial crisis and it's effect on the US economy, I was talking about the collapse of the US auto industry and it's effect on Michigan's economy. To me, the financial crisis is quite secondary (despite being part of the cause) to the impending collapse of the US auto industry.

In another decade, there'll be another recession. In twenty years, still another. Maybe more, the bubbles seem to pop quicker.

Recession is inherent in our economic model.



Of course they're avoidable. If we (collectively) didn't try to rape the shit out of every peak, stretch it as far as possible and squeeze every dollar out of it, it might dip, but it wouldn't crash.

If we took the profit margin from the market peak and applied it to the 'cost' of the trough - rather than treating the recessions like they are a different animal, unrelated to boom we were just riding, and that we're surprised to see looming - then the boom/bust model would flatten. But we don't do that.



We currently show no real trend towards different systems, and what little movement there is - is away from stronger, better economy.



I assumed you were saying the economy will get better and stronger. It won't.
You must be tons of fun to ride a rollercoaster with. Well, you can wallow in your pessimism if you like. History tells me that things go up, and then they go down, and then they go up again, rinse, repeat. And I personally choose to say that when things are up, they are better, and when things are down they are worse. I choose not to discount the good times just because they will eventually be followed by less good times. I also choose not to assume that no one will ever learn from mistakes, even though at the same time I brace myself for people to repeat those mistakes now and then, either out of ignorance or on purpose.

I wasn't talking about the financial crisis and it's effect on the US economy, I was talking about the collapse of the US auto industry and it's effect on Michigan's economy. To me, the financial crisis is quite secondary (despite being part of the cause) to the impending collapse of the US auto industry.
I was not separating them in my mind. To me, one of the keys to economic recovery will be the development of a new manufacturing base and a new technological industry base.

History tells me that things go up, and then they go down, and then they go up again, rinse, repeat.
Arguably only in capitalist society.

Which, funnily enough, resounds with your comment that:

...one of the keys to economic recovery will be the development of a new manufacturing base and a new technological industry base.
Change the mode of production, and you change socety (so says Karl).

Arguably only in capitalist society.

Which, funnily enough, resounds with your comment that:


Change the mode of production, and you change socety (so says Karl).
Yeah, Karl. Let me know when his theories actually work in application. :p

Yeah, Karl. Let me know when his theories actually work in application. :p
I think he's fundemenatlly screwy on a number of important issues (primarily that economics is the only factor we should be concerned about), but his (and others') suggestion that the boom-bust model is ingerent to capitalism is rather a convincing one.

You must be tons of fun to ride a rollercoaster with.


Not at all. Due to repeat stomach surgeries as a child, I don't ride rollercoasters because they make me feel both sick, and like I'm being literally torn in half from the inside-out.

Fortunately, that's not a required qualifiaction for this debate.


Well, you can wallow in your pessimism if you like.


It's not pessimism.


History tells me that things go up, and then they go down, and then they go up again, rinse, repeat.


I already said that. It's basically a simple harmonic motion.


And I personally choose to say that when things are up, they are better, and when things are down they are worse.


You said you were talking about long views, decades, even. In the long view, nothing is getting noticeably better or stronger.

Now, you're saying you really mean the short-term? If it is boom is is good, but bust is bad?


I choose not to discount the good times just because they will eventually be followed by less good times.


Not just 'be followed by' - but 'cause'.

No one is asking you to 'discount the good times'. On the other hand - if you could stop there being another recession/depression... would you?


I also choose not to assume that no one will ever learn from mistakes, even though at the same time I brace myself for people to repeat those mistakes now and then, either out of ignorance or on purpose.

'People', collectively, do not learn from mistakes.

I think he's fundemenatlly screwy on a number of important issues (primarily that economics is the only factor we should be concerned about), but his (and others') suggestion that the boom-bust model is inherent to capitalism is rather a convincing one.

And, more importantly, it's supported by the evidence.

I think he's fundemenatlly screwy on a number of important issues (primarily that economics is the only factor we should be concerned about), but his (and others') suggestion that the boom-bust model is ingerent to capitalism is rather a convincing one.
Mm-hmm. And?

Not at all. Due to repeat stomach surgeries as a child, I don't ride rollercoasters because they make me feel both sick, and like I'm being literally torn in half from the inside-out.

Fortunately, that's not a required qualifiaction for this debate.



It's not pessimism.



I already said that. It's basically a simple harmonic motion.



You said you were talking about long views, decades, even. In the long view, nothing is getting noticeably better or stronger.

Now, you're saying you really mean the short-term? If it is boom is is good, but bust is bad?



Not just 'be followed by' - but 'cause'.

No one is asking you to 'discount the good times'. On the other hand - if you could stop there being another recession/depression... would you?



'People', collectively, do not learn from mistakes.
Okay, you and I just have, clearly, a very different worldview when it comes to this sort of thing. We each clearly have in our minds sets of conditions we consider "good", "bad", "indifferent" or "tolerable" but our sets are different from each other. And I am getting the strong feeling that you would consider my world view to be bad, and I would consider your world view to be irrelevant.

But considering that these are just personal world views based on personal ideals and hopes and likes and dislikes and other such very subjective stuff, I propose there is little point in arguing about it.

I propose instead that we just agree to live on our own sides of this chasm.

Mm-hmm. And?
And that you're statement of, "[h]istory tells me that things go up, and then they go down, and then they go up again, rinse, repeat", is not correct, I'd contend, as the boom-bust model isn't a necessary feature of all economic systems.

And that you're statement of, "[h]istory tells me that things go up, and then they go down, and then they go up again, rinse, repeat", is not correct, I'd contend, as the boom-bust model isn't a necessary feature of all economic systems.
Okay... did I say it was? Or did I say it was a historical trend? Leaving aside my skepticism that boom/bust would never factor into a Marxist system, do you dispute that it is a historical trend in a capitalist system?

Okay... did I say it was?
Yes... the words are a direct quote from your post.

So you're either saying that the entire of economic history is a history of boom-and-bust, or that 'history' consists only of capitalist history, or it's simply a poorly worded post.

I thought you meant the former.

Yes... the words are a direct quote from your post.

So you're either saying that the entire of economic history is a history of boom-and-bust, or that 'history' consists only of capitalist history, or it's simply a poorly worded post.

I thought you meant the former.
You thought wrong, and I notice you failed to answer the question I posed to you. Do you or do you not deny that boom/bust is a historical trend of capitalist systems? Or do you not care one way or the other but are instead only interested in needling me?

Look, I said that this is what history showed ME. Obviously, I was not looking at the WHOLE of history but only at the parts of it I have seen. Of course, that would have little relevance to the thing you decided to needle me about, since there is no historical example of a Marxist system not experiencing boom/bust cycles over long periods of time, so even if I had considered the WHOLE of history, I would not have seen your suggested boom/bust-free Marxist system. But thanks anyway for imposing yourself upon me for no reason like that. It really made my day.

(Another person I can stop talking to.)

You thought wrong, and I notice you failed to answer the question I posed to you.
I hoped you would have picked up that when I said "the boom-bust model is in[h]erent to capitalism" that I believed the boom-bust model is inherent to capitalism.

As someone who consistently spits (unneeded) fury at posters for allegedly not reading threads, one hoped you'd follow your own advice.

So to repeat myself, yes, I believe boom-and-bust is a 'historical trend' of capitalism.

Or do you not care one way or the other but are instead only interested in needling me?
Yeah, that's it. The entire world is bent on trolling you through the internet, rather than attempting to discuss rather complex theoretical problems through the impersonal medium of an internet forum.

It's obviously a dastardly plan; put us all on Ignore.

]Look, I said that this is what history showed ME. Obviously, I was not looking at the WHOLE of history but only at the parts of it I have seen.
That's a rather novel way of looking at history. I often find it helpful to discuss history prior to the year I was born, as do most historians; I imagined (incorrectly it seems) you did too.

But don't let that STOP you from SHOUTING.

I hoped you would have picked up that when I said "the boom-bust model is in[h]erent to capitalism" that I believed the boom-bust model is inherent to capitalism.

As someone who consistently spits (unneeded) fury at posters for allegedly not reading threads, one hoped you'd follow your own advice.

So to repeat myself, yes, I believe boom-and-bust is a 'historical trend' of capitalism.


Yeah, that's it. The entire world is bent on trolling you through the internet, rather than attempting to discuss rather complex theoretical problems through the impersonal medium of an internet forum.

It's obviously a dastardly plan; put us all on Ignore.


That's a rather novel way of looking at history. I often find it helpful to discuss history prior to the year I was born, as do most historians; I imagined (incorrectly it seems) you did too.

But don't let that STOP you from SHOUTING.
Sigh. It's not shouting. It's emphasis becuase I'm too lazy to type in the bold face code.

Also, I did notice your reference to capitalist systems. I was wondering if you, actually, had forgotten that you had said that, because of the way you decided to go on and on about how I obviously must be either stupid or ignorant or something-centric because I used the word "history" to refer to just one part of history.

I figured the only two options were that you had just forgotten that you had already noted that I was just talking about one system, or, alternatively, that you were just trying to bust my chops because ... I don't know, you hate me, or you're bored, or something. I notice now that you are once again settling on bitching at me for how horrible my personality is rather than sticking to the topic, which you've done several times in different threads, leading me to suspect it's more likely that you just want to bust my chops.

Tell me, if I'm such a terrible person with such a bad personality that makes it so impossible to have an on-topic discussion with me, why do you respond to me at all, ever, about anything? Why is it always that I'm the one who ends up having to put you on ignore? I would think, if I'm that awful, you would have put me on ignore a long time ago.

It's not that I think people are out to get me. It's that I think there are three people on this forum who are just permanent pains in the ass, and two more (you're one of them) who just has a fucking problem with me, and always -- always -- ends up bitching about my personality in arguments that THEY started and refused to leave off. Why shouldn't I put you on ignore when you do that, huh? Why should I have to put up with that? This forum is not about me. If you don't like me, don't talk to me.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/01/news/economy/recession/?postversion=2008120115



So much for the right wing "we're not in a recession!" bullshit.

Bolded is also something that will prevent all the same right wing nutjobs from claiming it was "all teh Clintonz fault!11!"

It's over KoL... The Democrats won. You can come home.

... I don't know, you hate me, or you're bored, or something. I notice now that you are once again settling on bitching at me for how horrible my personality is rather than sticking to the topic, which you've done several times in different threads, leading me to suspect it's more likely that you just want to bust my chops.

<yadda yadda yadda>
Muravyets, it's a confusion between different uses of the term 'history'. Nothing more.

Relax thyself.

Muravyets, it's a confusion between different uses of the term 'history'. Nothing more.

Relax thyself.
There are times when it seems the only way I can relax around NSG is if you are unaware of my existence, because then at least there will be a 50% reduction in the number of people complaining about my personality, scolding me for shouting in a silent medium, insulting me, and then telling me to relax myself. Do I have to put you on ignore until you forget about me again, or are you ready to take the first step this time and leave me be?

Do I have to put you on ignore until you forget about me again, or are you ready to take the first step this time and leave me be?
Rhetorical?

Don't be playing this out as some 'attacker-victim' scenario. We're two posters with big egos and differing opinions on oft-volatile subjects.

That is all.

Rhetorical?

Don't be playing this out as some 'attacker-victim' scenario. We're two posters with big egos and differing opinions on oft-volatile subjects.

That is all.
Not rhetorical, and I guess I have my answer.

Recession 2 consecutive quarters of negative growth in the GDP

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hqgI1HyOUSxlxybZmnjJH-H0bqVw

The second quarter showed growth, the third shows a negative......2 consecutive quarters.

Learn to use the proper terminology.

there is a time when hair splitting is pertinent and a time when it is not.