Quote from: CavScout;236128If one wants to compare the current economic times to the Great Depression, why yes. Instantly.

That depends on which year in the Depression. I mean, contrary to popular belief, you didn't have the stock market crash, and then the next day one million farms turned to dust and one million factories shut their doors, sending twenty million onto the roads looking for work.

It was a gradual thing, it took a few years for the economic collapse to happen. When the stock market crashed in October of 1929, a news report said “the vast majority of Americans remain unaffected.” In December 1929, Secretary of the Treasury Mellon said, “I see nothing in the present situation that is either menacing or warrants pessimism."

And the economic thing itself was not itself to really fuck the US up. For that there was the economy in combination with the Dustbowl, with a good chunk of the Midwest drying up and blowing away. That is, an economic collapse alone was not enough to really hurt the US, but in combination with environmental problems, it was. The possible parallels in the future are obvious.

Even with a Depression, it takes time for everything to turn to shit. So that if this is a new US Depression, 2008 looks like 1929 did. Which if exactly matched in pace would mean 2012 will be your worst year, and after that some President with his shit together will take over and begin sorting things out, but it won't be until 2020 when you enter a global war that things will really go well for the US.

/facepalm

Now we have, "well, it's not really like the Great Depression yet... just wait!"

Must be awsome to have an argument that can't be countered as "proof" of it is coming in the future....:idunno:

Quote from: James J Skach;236127isn't electioneering? Because really, all it's doing is making the other guys priorities seem dangerous and wasteful - just like the other side is doing to the author's priorities.

James, serious question:  Is it possible that the "other guy's" priorities seem dangerous and wasteful because they are dangerous and wasteful?

It seems like your argument denies the possibility that someone could be wrong.  That the debate could be between two factions that do not have equally valid positions?

See, you're accusing the author of spinning things to make the "other guy's" position look bad.  But if the other guy's position is that we should shift the tax burden on to the middle class while paying premium prices to private enterprises owned by the upper class through no-bid contracts -- whether that be prescription drug plans that forbid collective bargaining, multi-billion dollar engineering contracts to build permanent installations in Iraq, or mercenary companies providing military services at exorbitant rates -- instead of funding basic health services for the working class (the people who, amongst other things, make our food...) then...how exactly do you make that not look bad?

I mean, that seems pretty objectively stupid and wrong.  It seems to me it takes a lot more spin to put a shine on that turd than it does to just acknowledge it's pretty wasteful and misguided.

Quote from: CavScoutJust imagine if "facts" would actually make you change your mind. They won't, so why ask for 'em?

That's a theory you've never tested.  A hypothesis.  Or, more likely, a pissy little excuse to not provide facts. Facts will totally make me change my mind.  I am quite susceptible to facts.  Give it a whirl.  I dare you.

Quote from: CavScoutBesides, you could provide your own "because" for why I am wrong. I won't hold my breadth.

I could, but if I did it would be a straw man argument, and then you'd just whine that I was putting words in your mouth.  I can't provide your argument for you.

QuoteEven with a Depression, it takes time for everything to turn to shit.

It also takes a leadership that does fuck all about anything.  This time around though, we've got whole fleets of Hoovers to bury the place.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;236143That depends on which year in the Depression. I mean, contrary to popular belief, you didn't have the stock market crash, and then the next day one million farms turned to dust and one million factories shut their doors, sending twenty million onto the roads looking for work.

No, as a matter of fact, the market fell, what, about 40% from September to November, right? If you take the peak at 14,000, which it hit in October of last year, it would have needed to hit 8400 in December of that year. It stands at 11,659 today. When it hit's 9,000 call me.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;236143It was a gradual thing, it took a few years for the economic collapse to happen. When the stock market crashed in October of 1929, a news report said "the vast majority of Americans remain unaffected." In December 1929, Secretary of the Treasury Mellon said, "I see nothing in the present situation that is either menacing or warrants pessimism."

That's because most Americans were not affected by it. It's difficult to comprehend in todays world of 401k's and IRA's and whatever - but most people did not have money in the market back then (according to one source I read, only 14% of households, where now it's over 50%). It did ripple because those companies lost capital and cut to the bone or died, which is how the middle and lower classes were devastated. Suddenly nobody was around to hire anyone.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;236143And the economic thing itself was not itself to really fuck the US up. For that there was the economy in combination with the Dustbowl, with a good chunk of the Midwest drying up and blowing away. That is, an economic collapse alone was not enough to really hurt the US, but in combination with environmental problems, it was. The possible parallels in the future are obvious.

So when the market falls to 9000, and the Midwest goes through a severe extended drought while simultaneously not rotating crops...

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;236143Even with a Depression, it takes time for everything to turn to shit. So that if this is a new US Depression, 2008 looks like 1929 did. Which if exactly matched in pace would mean 2012 will be your worst year, and after that some President with his shit together will take over and begin sorting things out, but it won't be until 2020 when you enter a global war that things will really go well for the US.

That if is not big enough.

And that's why comparing now to the Great Depression is so silly. It looked like it in 2001-2002 more so than now. I don't think we'll be able to avoid it or know we're in the next Great Depression until it's full on us.

Quote from: CavScout;236144/facepalm

Now we have, "well, it's not really like the Great Depression yet... just wait!"

Must be awsome to have an argument that can't be countered as "proof" of it is coming in the future....:idunno:

I didn't say the US had a Depression coming. I just said that to compare the current US situation with the 1930s Depression was only absurd if you compare 2008 with 1933. Whereas if you compare 2008 with 1929 things look more similar.

That does not mean that the US is doomed, it just means that the comparison of the current situation with the Depression is not automatically an absurd one. Again, I do not say the situations are the same, just that they are not so dissimilar that they're incomparable. But this is one of those "the world is not entirely black or white" things which so upsets some people.

Quote from: Jimmy SkachI don't think we'll be able to avoid it or know we're in the next Great Depression until it's full on us.

Well, you can avoid it, since you have the experience of history to show you what was done wrong last time. But if you insist on ignoring history (which is the modern trend in leadership and most especially with economists), then yes, you won't know it until it hits you.

Since when is it a viable scientific or statistical method to take one example and extrapolate the same, or even similar, results in another situation that is only superficially similar? Especially when just about every variable in the equation is radically different this time out?

Quote from: Werekoala;236183Since when is it a viable scientific or statistical method to take one example and extrapolate the same, or even similar, results in another situation that is only superficially similar? Especially when just about every variable in the equation is radically different this time out?

I didn't bring statistics into it, that was Skach.

Aside from that, we call it "learning from history". New things happen, but they often have a strong resemblance to things which happened in the past. The differences tell us things as well as do the similarities, but that does not mean the similarities tell us nothing.

*duplicate*

Yeah, that's a point, but sometimes I think people (and quite possibly, civilizations) can sometimes make things happen by focusing too much on what has gone before. You know, make it happen because they're afraid it'll happen, as it were. Or, I suppose, a better way of putting it is that by trying to read the tea-leaves of history, they over-correct into something just as bad, if not worse.

No evidence for it, of course.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;236185I didn't bring statistics into it, that was Skach.

Uhhh..no, I didn't. I pointed out how the original article's use of statistics was...well...to me at least...a bit suspect considering they don't appear to be accurate. It's the old lies, damn lies, and statistics bit, IMHO.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;236185Aside from that, we call it "learning from history". New things happen, but they often have a strong resemblance to things which happened in the past. The differences tell us things as well as do the similarities, but that does not mean the similarities tell us nothing.

And the question I raised in your little game is how similar are they really. You put out there that it's more like 1929 then 1933. Fair enough, so the market should be hitting 8400 any moment now, right? The entire Midwest is about to blow away due to decades of mismanagement and severe drought?

I'm challenging your implication that there are even similarities between 2008 and 1929. A recession and claims of devastation from global climate change do not make now like then.

Since we do have the benefit of learning from history, it's unlikely that the next Great Depression, and I don't doubt there will be one at some point, will not come the same way. It will be a strange combination of events no one understood - it will not be similar to the last Great Depression because those things have been mined for knowledge and counter-measures are developed. My point is we have learned from history so it's not likely to happen that way again. So your attempt to write off the response as an unwillingness to learn from history is misplaced.

Look at 1987. Look at how similar the market looked after that clusterfuck. People are still trying to figure out exactly why that happened. Why didn't the Great Depression happen after that? Look at 2001 after the Twin Towers fell. Think about how that looked like the one-two punch of a recession and a huge disaster. Why didn't the Great Depression happen then?

Kyle, this is one of those times when I'd love to see a longer dissertation from you. If you are an economist, or have extensively studied the economies of 1929-1933 and 2008, I'd love to see the detailed comparison. Or even just a link to someone who has it would be interesting. And that's not one of those Internet requests for details to derail the discussion. It's an honest request. Because if it exists, I'll listen.

But "The economy is bad and there's global climate change so it's like 1929 when the market tanked and the Midwest blew away" do not rise to the level of making the Great Depression comparison anything more than a corollary to Godwin.

We don't know the future. But we also can't run around being so scared of our own shadow that we freeze up or make fundamental changes to the character of the culture/country to avoid something that, as I point out above, we probably won't even see coming because it won't be the same.

You fellers are making a lot out of one mention of the Great Depression.

QuoteRight Winger Child: "Hey mom, I think we should replace the progressive income tax with a flat national sales tax because ..."
Right Winger Mother: "No! Don't say it!"
Right Winger Child: "Because..."
Right Winger Mother: "No! They're all going to laugh at you!"
Right Winger Child: "But mom..."
Right Winger Mother: "Noooooooo! They're all going to laugh at you!"
Right Winger Child: "Ma-"
Right Winger Mother: "NOOOOOOOOOO! THEY'RE ALL GOING TO LAUGH AT YOU!"

Hello my name is Wulfgar, and I think we should replace the income tax with a national sales tax becasue:
1. It would simplify the tax code tremendously, saving individuals and businesses all the time, effort, and money spent on complying with the income tax-not talking about the actual money spent to pay the tax, the money spent to figure out how to pay the tax.
2. A national sales tax gives more power to the individual and less power to the goverment, which is something I'm generally in favor of.  

Lots of other reasons too, but those are the two big ones.

Quote from: droog;236250You fellers are making a lot out of one mention of the Great Depression.

I thought the same thing after I posted, droog. I apologize for derailing. I'll bow out.

Quote from: James J Skach;236246The entire Midwest is about to blow away due to decades of mismanagement and severe drought?

See, things don't have to be exactly the same, they could be similar.  

For example, if a combination of ethanol production and massive flooding keep wiping out food crops, we won't need a dust bowl to have similar problems with skyrocketing food prices and scarcity.

In fact, we're already well on our way - or haven't you noticed that trips to the grocery store cost double or more what they did a couple years ago?