And I pointed out that comparing the depth of the previous recessions to the current situation when we are still on the way down is like saying you are doing fine after falling out of a fifth floor window when you have only fallen 2 floors.
And I pointed out that many economists feel that had the government not interfered when it did, the recession might now be on the way down. Just as Japan's interference prolonged their crisis, and FDR's interference prolonged his crisis, perhaps the good hearted interference of republicans and democrats during much of 2008 and 2009 has prolonged this recession.
Or alternatively, the market realizes that regardless of what Obama does that things will get worse before they get better secondary to the lingering effects of Bush's mismanagement.
Obviously, you haven't actually listened to what those who follow the market on various business programs have been saying. Tell us, if it turns out you folks are wrong and a decade from now economists admit that the government interference made things worse, are you going to say "sorry" and give us back our $8.5 trillion dollars? Of course not. You'll still just blame Bush.
Here's another chart for you
Well, well, look at that. Up until 11 months into THIS recession (till about August of last year), market losses were tracking with those during the 1973 oil crisis and the 1990s tech crash. Then all of a sudden those losses started tracking those of the crash of 1929. What happened about August/October of last year? The government interfered. Bush signed the $700 billion dollar bailout package and everyone in Washington started talking about the need for massive spending to *stimulate* the economy. And you think that's just a coincidence?
I challenge you to show where I said anything about Japan's economic crisis being Bush's fault.
Then why did you bring it up in the same sentence with all the rest of your complaints?
we should not follow Japan's example from the 90's. They allowed their zombie banks to survive and lost a decade of growth as a result.
We aren't just talking about bailing out banks here, gdnp. And there is more to what the Japanese did than what you mention. How many *stimulus* bills did the Japanese push through during the "lost" years? Stimulus bills ran their national debt to just under 2 times GDP. And didn't work. Which should serve as a warning concerning the wisdom of the massive stimulus and social spending that Obama has embarked this country on ... deficit spending so large that in 10 years time the National Debt will increase by $8.5 trillion dollars (nearly doubling, even if things go well) and we will be running yearly deficits that will make the ones during the Bush administration that Obama criticized seem puny by comparison (even though, ironically, Obama has blamed those deficits for getting us into the economic crisis in the first place).
If simply spending like crazy on social programs was the way to get out of recession, then there'd never have been any recessions and the Japanese never would have experienced the "lost decade". Isn't that obvious? The US (thanks to the urgent program that LBJ embarked us on in the 60's) spent about $10 trillion dollars on the war on poverty over about 45 years. And, obviously, the recipients of that largess didn't put it into savings. And we had recession after recession.
And what are you going to do when this new spending splurge and the debt it creates rears the ugly head of inflation again? Inflation kills the growth of economies ... just look at what happened during the Carter years. Obama and the rest of Washington's politicos are creating a ticking time bomb but they know they will be out of office when it explodes, so they don't care. They are committing intergenerational theft that will saddle our children with unbearable debts and sacrifices ... all because we weren't willing to sacrifice and the democrats had a socialist agenda to push.
Maybe they should follow the model of one of the currently profitable car makers, like Toyota.
Who have the government deciding which models to make?
Oops. They had a 1.8 billion dollar operating loss last year. How about Daimler? Oops. They lost 1.95 billion last quarter. How about Nissan? Oops. predicted 3 billion dollar loss this fiscal year, shedding 8.5 % of their workforce. Volkswagen? Heh! they made a profit for the year! Maybe everyone should start making Volkswagens! Except they are expecting a loss for the first quarter of 2009...
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make other than that during downturns even car companies lose money. That's the way it works. So is Obama's socialist government now going to guarantee car companies never lose money again? How? By STEALING from those who are successful and giving what is stolen (minus a 20-30% *management fee*) to the companies and their employees? The real problem here, gdnp, is that you don't have any faith in the free market. Why not just admit it? You're willing to have Nancy Pelosi make the decision what you drive. Which is about the same thing that happened in the USSR's planned economy. And look how that turned out.
Or maybe it's because solving a financial crisis like this takes time.
Well at least now a little bit of doubt is creeping into your rhetoric ... an admission that you folks really are flying blind. I call that progress.
The truth is you and Obama don't really know if this is going to work or not. When it's been tried in the past, it hasn't. But you're *hoping* (and after all, isn't that what Obama's administration is all about ... *hope*?). Pretty big gamble with our and our children's money, though.
One of the factors that is contributing to the financial contraction is that people are saving rather than spending.
First they got yelled at for not saving enough and now they are getting yelled at for saving too much. One might almost think you folks don't know what you really want from them.
Consumers won't start spending again until they are more secure in their finances, and one way that they will become more secure is when they decrease their debt. This will not happen overnight.
And certainly not as long as the government runs deficits over $500 billion a year, year after year after year, as will happen under Obama's announced budget plans (and they are already talking about another new *stimulus* that probably isn't factored into that spending). Americans aren't going to be secure under those conditions ... unless you can convince them that money grows on trees ... because the government's debt is their debt. And you aren't talking about decreasing it, but doubling it.
You can quote economists that claim that government spending worsened the great depression. I can quote economists who claim that Roosevelt's failure was not spending enough: it took the massive deficit spending of WWII to fuel the expansion.
We already had the discussion regarding why comparing WW2 spending to what Obama is doing is bogus. I don't recall your side winning that argument. In fact, it seems to me your side basically ignored and ran from the numerous facts I noted at that time. Why not just listen to what FDR's own Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, said about 8 years after FDR's administration first started throwing money at their economic woes: "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before
and it does not work. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat.
We have never made good on our promises. ... I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started .... and an enormous debt to boot!" You don't believe him, gdnp? Mark my words ... Obama, with just as good of intentions (at least I hope), is going to accomplish just as little now. And then what will we do ... start a war? But wait ... your side just got done criticizing all the spending on a war.
