Why is it a recession rather than the second Great Depression?

[exdetroiter]

In reviewing history, the current economic state of affairs and actions as a result of it aren't much different than the Great Depression, so why isn't it being called what it really is?

[Flanders]

No sepia photos of thin, malnourished and gritty-looking families living in darkened one room shacks or flats with no running water or electricity, wearing patched and dirty used clothes, and the faded B&W newsreels and photos of unemployed crowds of men in public wearing dusty hats and grimy suits, as well as boots or shoes with holes in the soles, some standing nearby a newsstand with Depression era headlines on the front pages of the newspapers.

Just like the federal government did not acknowledge that the US was in a recession for a year after it began, the same will be true for a depression, it likely won't be called one until long after the economy improves...or if it gets unavoidably noticeable and significantly worse, ie..riots and disorderly chaos ensues in large and medium sized cities.

The old saying: If your neighbors are out of a job, it is a recession, but if you are as well, then it is a depression.

[Big Dog]

No soup or bread lines.............yet.

[Bobl]

Recession is reading about the decline in economic activity, and worrying about it.
Severe recession is losing one's job and dealing with overdue bills due to the decline in economic activity.
Depression is wondering where your next meal and shelter will come from.

Unsophisticated and anecdotal, but arguably true!

[Lorax]

The reason is the conservative co-opted media, all of which is owned or managed by right wing conservative interests. They certainly aren't going to point the finger of blame on themselves.

Rupert Murdoch's Newscorp is a fascist organization, and those who work for Fox are taking their talking points from an Austrailian fascist.

The safety net of what conservatives deride as "socialist systems" like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are in place now, and were a direct result of the Great Depression.

Goes to prove that socialism when handled properly, can work well. Can anyone imagine the anarchy that would take place if we didn't have the social safety nets in place, as underfunded as they are, even now?

What's even scarier is what the nation's domestic policy would look like if John McShame and Saracuda were in the White House.

[ccbatson]

The definition of recession is pretty cut and dry...negative growth of GDP for at least 2 quarters. Depression is less well defined. Most agree that a very deep and very prolonged recession is a depression. Some say that a decline of GDP over 10% qualifies.

[DetroitDad]

No sepia photos of thin, malnourished and gritty-looking families living in darkened one room shacks or flats with no running water or electricity, wearing patched and dirty used clothes, and the faded B&W newsreels and photos of unemployed crowds of men in public wearing dusty hats and grimy suits, as well as boots or shoes with holes in the soles, some standing nearby a newsstand with Depression era headlines on the front pages of the newspapers.

Just like the federal government did not acknowledge that the US was in a recession for a year after it began, the same will be true for a depression, it likely won't be called one until long after the economy improves...or if it gets unavoidably noticeable and significantly worse, ie..riots and disorderly chaos ensues in large and medium sized cities.

The old saying: If your neighbors are out of a job, it is a recession, but if you are as well, then it is a depression.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/17/news...ey_mostpopular

In the next few weeks, the victims of the mass layoffs that happened six months ago -- when the pace of layoffs was at its zenith -- will start running out of their basic benefits. A total of 4.4 million people are expected to face this fate -- or 65% of the entire filing population.

It turns out it might have just been too early for shanty towns.

[Detroitej72]

In reviewing history, the current economic state of affairs and actions as a result of it aren't much different than the Great Depression, so why isn't it being called what it really is?

Because the Republican's have better spin doctors now than during the last Great Republican Depression.

[Jimaz]

This is the type of subject that needs to be discussed only in quantitative terms. Using terms like "recession" and "depression" only leads to fruitless semantic disputes. Fruitlessness is exactly what we don't need right now.

[douglasm]

That's a good question. One of the problems with an answer is that there is no sure definition of a recession in the same way economically a recession is defined by 2 or more quarters of declining Gross Domestic Product.

One rule of thumb that is used to define a depression is a downturn in the GDP by 10% or more. Using that rule, The Gread Depression could be divided into two parts, one from August 1929 through March of 1933, a small recovery, then another depression from May 1937 through June of 1938. Using this formula, the worst recession since WW II was from November 1973 through March 1975, when GDP fell about 5%. We're not closs to depression levels......

.....yet.

[ccbatson]

It is, and will be a socialist depression. A big difference between this one and the great depression, is that this time, with a Marxist regime in power, they want it too happen. Geitner was recently caugh t in an interview describing the merits of stagnation and wanting to avoid the next "boom"...Ahem, that next "boom" is the recovery we desperately need.

[oladub]

Regional differences will determine 'recession vs. depression' for many.

I just came across some California statistics. Most of the real estate markets are down 20-25% over the last year in California. Sales taxes were lower [[-50.9%) than last April, and personal income taxes were down [[-43.6%) and the State of California is already deeply in debt with some of the highest taxes in the country. These are depression level numbers. Meanwhile, housing prices are up in S. Carolina's urban areas and the farm based economies of the Dakotas are holding their own.

Maybe the sequel to the Grapes of Wrath will be about a family of California yuppies who move to Bismarck in search of and cheap housing and honest work regulating something but wind up going door to door selling latte machines.

[reddog289]

The media says so .

[Lorax]

It is, and will be a socialist depression. A big difference between this one and the great depression, is that this time, with a Marxist regime in power, they want it too happen. Geitner was recently caugh t in an interview describing the merits of stagnation and wanting to avoid the next "boom"...Ahem, that next "boom" is the recovery we desperately need.

Yet more tripe from the Repugnican Taliban.

Maybe your memory is short, rather like your stature, and you forgot who got us into this mess in the first place. George Tush is the one who sent his former Goldman Sachs CEO Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to congress and fearmonger them into giving the banks 750 billion bucks, which amounted to the largest bank heist in American history.

And Goldman Sachs got the lion's share of the bailout money, gee, go figure.

Before raiding the treasury, he said to congress, and I quote: " If we don't receive these funds, and quickly, there may be anarchy in the streets."

You'd think congress would have learned about fearmongering by now, so with a stroke of the pen, the banks got our money, and then reufsed to open credit markets, which is true to this day. They are thieves in the worst sense of the word.

And don't try and tell me it was a democratically led congress which approved this, since the slim majority the democrats had at the time still required repugnicans to step over the aisle to get a 60 vote majority to knock this down, and naturally nearly all repugnicans voted for it.

The new super-majority democratic congress didn't get seated, as we know until January 09.

[DetroitDad]

The rest of the world cannot live with the standards that America is accustomed too. We just would not survive. That really means America is going to either have to give up some luxuries, or have them eventually taken. We cannot really defend ourselves from this. The top is always eventually toppled.

If we don't change things ourselves, rest assured that someone will change them for us.

The other issue is that the rich in America seemed to forget where their money came from, I agree. Or, maybe they just don't care? More money can be made over seas where they don't all have cars and twelve speed blenders yet. It's a locust way of thinking.

[ccbatson]

If by "luxuries" you mean socialist entitlements, then yes...we need to give them up post haste. However, Obama is going in the exact opposite direction...a disaster in progress.

[Lorax]

If by "luxuries" you mean socialist entitlements, then yes...we need to give them up post haste. However, Obama is going in the exact opposite direction...a disaster in progress.

So, when are you going to refuse your "socialist" Social Security? How about Medicare? Medicaid?

We'll be sure to let these agencies know you're not interested in collecting when it's time.

Since you're not interested in being taxed, we'll be sure to exclude you from participating in the rest of our "socialist" society.

When your house is on fire, I'll be sure to send away the "socialist" fire department, and when you're robbed, I'll be sure to refuse a visit from the "socialist" police department.

Do you really hear what you're saying?

Maybe you should move to Texas, where the backward mentality of secession is taking root. You and Texas can provide your own military, police, fire, tax collection, hospitals, bridges, roads, etc.

Let's see you get around this one.

[oladub]

Lorax, Your premise that taxpayers who oppose things they do not want or are not entitled to see some of their tax money returned is flawed. Whether or not everyone who expects their Social Security and Medicare money returned will get it is another question. Medicare is expected to run into trouble in 2017 and Social Security in 2037 without higher taxes, or reducing or delaying benefits. So far, politicians would rather be dreaming up additional spending programs than make existing programs solvent.


There are no prohibitions against socialism in the Constitution. Many government financed and run programs are specifically mentioned as are specific ways to raise revenue. If Michigan voters choose to erect a health care program or Warren voters want to have a good taxpayer supported fire department, the 10th Amendment does not forbid it. If the people of Texas or Michigan choose instead to have private health care and privatized fire departments, they can do that too.


Choices made often determine whether specific states will have unemployment rates under 4% as do the Dakotas and Wyoming or unemployment rates three times that high like Michigan. California gave itself a boost by going deeply into debt. I don't suppose that residents of states that chose more prudent governance will be happy to be forced to bail out the spendthrift voters of California.


Senate Feingold has introduced a bill that would nationalize all water. It eliminates the ability of states to control their own wetlands, intermittent streams, etc.. This might sound like a good ideas but won't sound so good if the federal government decides to start piping Great Lake water to the southwest. That is what the state sovereignty movement is about - not succession. Most of the things you mentioned in Texas are already being paid for locally anyway.

[Lorax]

Actually nearly all local and state governments need supplemental funding to keep basic services solvent, and regularly plug hole in their budgets with federal monies.

The answer really is to socialize all of the basics of living in a civilized society, combined with a regulated private sector.

I do believe in state sovreignty, and think the great lakes states and Canada need to stand firm on keeping water from the Great Lakes from being piped out of region.

That said, I also believe in a single payer health care system, basically a revamping of Medicare, which is already a single payer system, to be an all-inclusive cradle to grave health service which Americans could opt out of if they choose, though would be able to re-enter without penalty should their situation change.

Socialist democracies in Europe do quite well with health care and other social services. We now find ourselves in this country personally paying for EMS services, or indeed police and fire calls in many cities. This was never the case before.

France as an example of their priorities spend 57 cents of every tax dollar on education and culture. This includes the arts, music, dance, architecture and the ongoing restoration of the nations architectural treasures. We could do the same here and have a much better quality of life, and a better educated people who don't fall into the belief system of radical christian fundamentalism and xenophobia.

The hue and cry of the right wing over socializing such things in America would have them screwing themselves into the ground.

Remember when Detroit Edison took back burnt out light bulbs and gave you new ones in exchange? That's when we kept bulb production in the US, which employed Americans, and serviced Americans.

Now with cheap bulbs imported from China, and I use 'cheap' in the perjorative sense of the word, we discard our bulbs to landfills rather than recycle them, and our bulbs don't last nearly as long.

And we pay for them.

Most republicans would term this as a 'socialist' policy, not letting free enterprise find the best and highest use for the production, distribution, of the lowly light bulb.

Look where this flawed ideology has gotten us.

[ccbatson]

It is not as simple as refusing the benefits...BECAUSE YOU CAN'T REFUSE TO PAY FOR THEM.

[Lorax]

It is not as simple as refusing the benefits...BECAUSE YOU CAN'T REFUSE TO PAY FOR THEM.

No, you can't refuse to pay for them.

But you can refuse to accept them. If repugnicans put their money where their rhetoric is, they would say, sorry, I'm not interested in taking Social Security or Medicare.

George Tush asked me to pay for illegal wars, wiretapping my computer, defense spending, hiring fascist right wing corporations for no-bid contracting [[really war profiteering) such as Blackwater, KBR, Halliburton, Bechtel.

I never approved of the way my tax dollars were spent. And I refuse to support a president who wastes lives and treasure on illegal activity.

At least stand up for what you believe in, and refuse to accept that which you consider 'socialist'

[ccbatson]

Refuse to accept what you pay for?? This is not slavery how? This is liberty and freedom how?

[Lorax]

Refuse to accept what you pay for?? This is not slavery how? This is liberty and freedom how?

You don't think you have an obligation to your countrymen?

What sort of price do YOU think you should pay for living in this great country?

Democracy is NOT a spectator sport, all have to contribute.

I really suggest a reading or watching of Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" to better ground your thinking on what it means to live in a civilized society.

[ccbatson]

Synonyms, but a matter of degree.

Graham, BEING COVERED BY THE LIBERAL NYTs, is railing against one [[of the many) negative consequences of socialized housing in the form of subprime lending catastrophes. Subprime lending is a direct result of socialized hyousing where the liberal belief that everyone is entitled to a hous, whether they can afford it, or not. He is arguing against THAT, not free market housing.

[Lorax]

Wrong again, Batts, it was Bush who was advocating a home for everyone, especially those who were unable to afford one before. I sat there and watched it myself. Don't lie.

He drove people into the arms of unregulated lenders, banks, as a final push over the edge, cash grab, for his corporate buddies. Phil Gramm grinning his crocodile smile all the way. Knowing full well it was unsustainable, and immoral.