No Great Depression 2.0

[pinqy]

The chart is totally bogus. If one were to use the unemployment counting means of the 1930's the unemployment fall off in 2008-9 has been far greater than 1929. Consider that unemployment now is between 10 and 20 percent. That does not show in the chart. Even the government with all of its lies admits that it is 9.7% NOT THE FIVE PERCENT DEPICTED.

The chart isn't saying unemployment is five percent. It's say employment has declined by five percent from peak.

You realize he's going to ignore you, just like he does anytime anyone points out his misunderstanding/misinterpretation, don't you? If he does respond, it'll be a rant on some other tangent, requiring more explanation. He's still spouting lies I've already corrected him on (with links and evidence).

 

[Toro]

Consumption expenditures have begun to rise.

It appears that wages may have bottomed and may be beginning to rise.

Economist's View: Fed Watch: Quick Note on Confidence

 

[Toro]

Some have argued that the "real" unemployment is similar to that of the Depression. However, one economist notes

"At the business trough in 1933," Mr. Darda points out, "the unemployment rate stood at 25% (if there had been a 'U6' version of labor underutilization then, it likely would have been about 44% vs. 16.8% today. . . )

From Bear to Bull: James Grant on Recession and Recovery - WSJ.com

 

[Polk]

Some have argued that the "real" unemployment is similar to that of the Depression. However, one economist notes

"At the business trough in 1933," Mr. Darda points out, "the unemployment rate stood at 25% (if there had been a 'U6' version of labor underutilization then, it likely would have been about 44% vs. 16.8% today. . . )

From Bear to Bull: James Grant on Recession and Recovery - WSJ.com

Interesting read.

 

[Neubarth]

The chart is totally bogus. If one were to use the unemployment counting means of the 1930's the unemployment fall off in 2008-9 has been far greater than 1929.

You continue to confuse employment and unmployment. They are seperate things. There was no real method of counting unemployed in the 30's...the census was used, and there was a postcard survey in 1936, but no systematic measurement of unemployment. Employment had been tracked since 1915, and while not comprehensive, by 1932 it covered over a hundred industries. By 1936 the sample did cover all non-farm wage and salary employment.

Consider that unemployment now is between 10 and 20 percent. That does not show in the chart. Even the government with all of its lies admits that it is 9.7% NOT THE FIVE PERCENT DEPICTED.

The 5% is NET JOB LOSS, NOT UNEMPLOYMENT. Learn the difference. One more time, job loss (or gain) is the difference between the number of non-farm payroll jobs (people holding multiple jobs are counted for each job) and Unemployment is the number of people without work actively looking for work. Completely different, non-comparable, things.

You also should know that the Federal numbers of the present time are totally bogus as they do not reflect self employed

Yes, they do. They are included in the household survey, and always have been.

Just more of your insane badinage. All of the government numbers are totally bogus and can not be believed. You lie constantly in your replies to me. Read my entire response before making up your insane lies like you do. I have never said that lost jobs are the same as unemployment. You constantly make that lie up and pretend that you know what you are talking about. You are nutz.

The only government numbers that I believe are the Unemployment Insurance claims. They went UP again this week, while your government favricated numbers says that unemployment went down. Lie after lie after lie after lie after lie after lie after lie. When will this federal government insanity end???????????? When will you stop being a shill for the federal government and the lying minions who deceive the public.

 

[Old Rocks]

Some have argued that the "real" unemployment is similar to that of the Depression. However, one economist notes

"At the business trough in 1933," Mr. Darda points out, "the unemployment rate stood at 25% (if there had been a 'U6' version of labor underutilization then, it likely would have been about 44% vs. 16.8% today. . . )

From Bear to Bull: James Grant on Recession and Recovery - WSJ.com

Thank you, Toro. I don't always fully understand the articles you post, but with each one of them, I am becoming a little more conversant with how the economy has operated in the past.

 

[pinqy]

Just more of your insane badinage.

Facts, that can be backed up by documentation is now insane? Simple logic and analysis of a chart is insane?

All of the government numbers are totally bogus and can not be believed.

And yet you have NEVER shown any evidence of manipulation or how they are bogus other than the fact that you just don't believe them.

You lie constantly in your replies to me.

You keep claiming that, but you have NEVER pointed out a single actual lie.

Read my entire response before making up your insane lies like you do. I have never said that lost jobs are the same as unemployment.

Yes, you did. You said: "Consider that unemployment now is between 10 and 20 percent. That does not show in the chart. Even the government with all of its lies admits that it is 9.7% NOT THE FIVE PERCENT DEPICTED." But the depiction was of job losses. So right there you were claiming that job losses were unemployment. Your hypocrisy is amazing. You have NEVER shown that you have the least understanding of Employment or Unemployment statistics. Everytime I point out the truth, straight out of the BLS Handbook and other documentation of methodology, you hand-wave it away claiming lies, but never ever say what exactly is a lie.

The only government numbers that I believe are the Unemployment Insurance claims. They went UP again this week, while your government favricated numbers says that unemployment went down.

And right here you are again confusing job losses with unemployment. There's no earthly reason why UI claims can't go up and total unemployment goes down. And in any case you're lying...Unemployment went up, not down. It went from 14,462,000 in July to 14,928,000 in August. Sept numbers come out next week. Now if you want to go by the not seasonally adjusted numbers, Unemployment did go down, from 15,201,000 to 14,823,000. But you claim seasonal adjustment is bogus too..... But why would the government manipulate the numbers to make things worse?

You won't respond to any specific points, of course. You'll just call me a liar and make vague accusations of corruption and manipulation with nothing but your senile brain to back it up.

 

[Toro]

Employment of those over the age of 20 is still higher than at anytime before 1985.

Greg Mankiw's Blog: Judging Downturns II

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/09/judging-downturns.html

 

[Neubarth]

Just more of your insane badinage.

Facts, that can be backed up by documentation is now insane? Simple logic and analysis of a chart is insane?

All of the government numbers are totally bogus and can not be believed.

And yet you have NEVER shown any evidence of manipulation or how they are bogus other than the fact that you just don't believe them. You keep claiming that, but you have NEVER pointed out a single actual lie.

Read my entire response before making up your insane lies like you do. I have never said that lost jobs are the same as unemployment.

Yes, you did. You said: "Consider that unemployment now is between 10 and 20 percent. That does not show in the chart. Even the government with all of its lies admits that it is 9.7% NOT THE FIVE PERCENT DEPICTED." But the depiction was of job losses. So right there you were claiming that job losses were unemployment. Your hypocrisy is amazing. You have NEVER shown that you have the least understanding of Employment or Unemployment statistics. Everytime I point out the truth, straight out of the BLS Handbook and other documentation of methodology, you hand-wave it away claiming lies, but never ever say what exactly is a lie.

The only government numbers that I believe are the Unemployment Insurance claims. They went UP again this week, while your government favricated numbers says that unemployment went down.

And right here you are again confusing job losses with unemployment. There's no earthly reason why UI claims can't go up and total unemployment goes down. And in any case you're lying...Unemployment went up, not down. It went from 14,462,000 in July to 14,928,000 in August. Sept numbers come out next week. Now if you want to go by the not seasonally adjusted numbers, Unemployment did go down, from 15,201,000 to 14,823,000. But you claim seasonal adjustment is bogus too..... But why would the government manipulate the numbers to make things worse?

You won't respond to any specific points, of course. You'll just call me a liar and make vague accusations of corruption and manipulation with nothing but your senile brain to back it up.

Anal Ignoramus, the essence of the matter is that you are an insane pathological liar who constantly turns things around and pretends that your perverted version is the truth.

Your love of the government false numbers shows that you are insane. I have told you over and over again that the only unemployment indicator that I recognise as having a semblance of accuracy are the individual reports from the states that show the unemployment insurance claims. The Federal government numbers are totally bogus. You continue and continue and continue to lie like hell about my position as you continue your insane trolling on this board.....................................................................

Note, I do not come to your threads and troll on them like you do on mine. My position is set and no amount of continued trolling by a lunatic like you will change my position. If you do not like my position, just go ahead and post on other topics. I am right and you are always wrong as is obvious by the continuing Depression that the nation faces.

Your constant convolution and insane distortions of what I have posted shows that you are a pathological liar with a criminal mind. My factual understanding of how horribly corrupt and dishonest our government is will not be changed by all of your outrageous lies. You are in serious need of phychiatric assistance. Please get help.

 

[Toro]

The recent global financial and economic crisis has put the 1929-33 Great Depression back into the limelight. Looking at the Depression and today’s domestic and international arrangements, some have opined that another recession as severe as the Depression is around the corner. In light of the above, this paper revisits the events leading to the Depression and discusses the most prominent arguments on the causes, including the Friedman-Schwartz hypothesis, the bank failures in 1920s, and the slump in the U.S. consumption. The paper continues with a reconciliation of the theories and finally ends with an assessment of the possibility of a return of the Depression based on today’s considerations. The authors assert that unless there is another disaster of catastrophic proportions, the world will likely be free of such an awful depression in the 21st century.

SSRN-A Reconsideration of the Great Depression by Chee-Heong Quah , Patrick Crowley
http://www.amdisa.org/publica.html

These guys are spot on. If there is going to have another Great Depression, there has to be continuing cataclysmic events, such as what happened to Lehman Brothers. If there aren't other Lehman Brothers-type events, the economy will not fall into another Depression.

 

[Neubarth]

These guys are spot on. If there is going to have another Great Depression, there has to be continuing cataclysmic events, such as what happened to Lehman Brothers. If there aren't other Lehman Brothers-type events, the economy will not fall into another Depression.

Dude, we are already in a Depression. The only thing to be determined is the degree of the depression.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Let's audits the Fed and see who they loaned $2 Trillion to off books and $9 trillion in total.

That's the only reason we're not in a Democrat induced and Fed abetted Great Depression

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The chart is totally bogus. If one were to use the unemployment counting means of the 1930's the unemployment fall off in 2008-9 has been far greater than 1929. Consider that unemployment now is between 10 and 20 percent. That does not show in the chart. Even the government with all of its lies admits that it is 9.7% NOT THE FIVE PERCENT DEPICTED.

Its not the rate of unemployment. It is the rate of job loss in nonfarm employment.

Yup. And notice toro also used the percent and not the numbers.

 

[Neubarth]

The chart is totally bogus. If one were to use the unemployment counting means of the 1930's the unemployment fall off in 2008-9 has been far greater than 1929. Consider that unemployment now is between 10 and 20 percent. That does not show in the chart. Even the government with all of its lies admits that it is 9.7% NOT THE FIVE PERCENT DEPICTED.

Its not the rate of unemployment. It is the rate of job loss in nonfarm employment.

Yup. And notice toro also used the percent and not the numbers.

I was too quick to condemn the data as I always am. There are lies, damned lies and Statistics (Data). When people what to prove that the illogical is true they resort to producing Data to support their illogical position. We can see the economic collapse of America. We do not need to waste our good time looking at manufactured numbers that can make it look like the economic collapse is not happening. That is just a foolish action for people who want to live in dream worlds.

 

[Toro]

Let's audits the Fed and see who they loaned $2 Trillion to off books and $9 trillion in total.

That's the only reason we're not in a Democrat induced and Fed abetted Great Depression

The Fed has not lent $9 trillion. They have guaranteed $9 trillion. Actually, its more like $14 trillion now, I believe.

 

[Toro]

It is now 19 months after Bear Stearns failed and was taken over by JP MorganChase with the assistance of up to $30 billion of Federal Reserve money on March 16, 2008, and industrial production stands 14% below its peak in 2007. By contrast, 19 months after the Bank of the United States, with 450,000 depositors, failed on December 11, 1930 – the first major bank collapse in New York since the Knickerbocker Trust failure during the panic and depression of 1907 – industrial production, according to the Federal Reserve index, was 54% below its 1929 peak.

Project Syndicate - Slouching Toward Sanity

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

It is now 19 months after Bear Stearns failed and was taken over by JP MorganChase with the assistance of up to $30 billion of Federal Reserve money on March 16, 2008, and industrial production stands 14% below its peak in 2007. By contrast, 19 months after the Bank of the United States, with 450,000 depositors, failed on December 11, 1930 – the first major bank collapse in New York since the Knickerbocker Trust failure during the panic and depression of 1907 – industrial production, according to the Federal Reserve index, was 54% below its 1929 peak.

Project Syndicate - Slouching Toward Sanity

It was a totally different system with very few regulations compared to what we have today. Hopefully our printing of money and using tax dollars to prop up industry doesn't come back to bite us in the ass like i'm nervous it may do.

But still thats a good sign that the "stimulus/TARP" may not be a total waste of our money.

 

[Toro]

Here is an updated graph of the stock market overlaid against the Depression and a few other crises. As you can see, stocks are not following the path of 1929-1930.

 

[Neubarth]

The fact remains that we are entering the Greatest Depression in World history. The government can lie all it wants, but the people are suffering more now than ever before.

 

[uscitizen]

Don't we have higher job loss counts than during the great depression?