Forum Post: How many times has the economy crashed?
Posted 12 years ago on May 30, 2012, 9:08 a.m. EST by JackHall
(413)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
“The USA is a free country, meaning we are free to succeed or to fail. Our founding fathers and our Constitution ensured these freedoms, not entitlements or handouts”
A little history is nice to know. Who are the real idiots here? How many times has the economy crashed? You’d expect people in the financial sector could learn from their mistakes instead of making the same ones over and over with increasing severity, or finding new ways to screw things up!. Each a worse debacle than the earlier one.
Panic of 1873
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1873
The Panic of 1873 triggered a severe international economic depression in both Europe and the United States that lasted until 1879, and even longer in some countries. The depression was known as the Great Depression until the 1930s, but is now known as the Long Depression.[1] The panic was caused by the fall in demand for silver internationally, which followed Germany's decision to abandon the silver standard in the wake of the Franco-Prussian war.[2]
In 1871, Otto von Bismarck extracted a large indemnity in gold from France and ceased minting silver thaler coins. The first symptoms of the crisis were financial failures in the Austro-Hungarian capital, Vienna, which spread to most of Europe and North America by 1873. It was one of a series of economic crises in the 19th and early 20th centuries. In Britain, the result was two decades of stagnation known as the "Long Depression", which weakened Britain's economic leadership in the world.[3]
Panic of 1884
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1884
The Panic of 1884 was a panic during the Recession of 1882-85. Gold reserves of Europe were depleted and the New York City national banks, with tacit approval of the United States Treasury Department, halted investments in the rest of the United States and called in outstanding loans. A larger crisis was averted when New York Clearing House bailed out banks in risk of failure. Nevertheless, the investment firm Grant & Ward, Marine Bank of New York, and Penn Bank of Pittsburgh along with more than 10,000 small firms failed.
The Depression of 1882-85 or Recession of 1882-85 was a recession in the United States that lasted from March 1882 to May 1885, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. At 38 months in length this is the third-longest recession in the NBER's chronology of business cycles from 1854 to present. Only the Great Depression and Long Depression of 1873?79 are longer.[1]
Panic of 1893
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1893
The Panic of 1893 was a serious economic depression in the United States and began in 1893. This panic was an extension of the Panic of 1873, and like that earlier crash, was caused by railroad overbuilding and shaky railroad financing which set off a series of bank failures. Compounding market overbuilding and a railroad bubble was a run on the gold supply and a policy of using both gold and silver metals as a peg for the US Dollar value. The Panic of 1893 was the worst economic crisis to hit the nation in its history to that point and, some argue, as bad as the Great Depression of the 1930s.
Panic of 1907
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1907
The Panic of 1907, also known as the 1907 Bankers' Panic, was a financial crisis in the United States. The stock market fell nearly 50% from its peak in 1906, the economy was in recession, and there were numerous runs on banks and trust companies. Its primary cause was a retraction of loans by some banks that began in New York and soon spread across the nation, leading to the closings of banks and businesses. The 1907 panic was the fourth panic in 34 years.
Great Depression
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression
The Great Depression was a dramatic, worldwide economic downturn beginning in some countries as early as 1928.[1] The beginning of the Great Depression in the United States is associated with the stock market crash on October 29, 1929, known as Black Tuesday and the end is associated with the onset of the war economy of World War II, beginning around 1939.
The Bush family and the S&L Scandal of 1989
http://rationalrevolution.net/war/bush_family_and_the_s.htm
What is important to note about the S&L scandal is that it was the largest theft in the history of the world and US tax payers are who was robbed.
The problems occurred in the Savings and Loan industry as they relate to theft because the industry was deregulated under the Reagan/Bush administration and restrictions were eased on the industry so much that abuse and misuse of funds became easy, rampant, and went unchecked.
There are several ways in which the Bush family plays into the Savings and Loan scandal, which involves not only many members of the Bush family but also many other politicians that are still in office and still part of the Bush Jr. administration today. Jeb Bush, George Bush Sr., and his son Neil Bush have all been implicated in the Savings and Loan Scandal, which cost American tax payers over $1.4 TRILLION dollars (note that this is about one quarter of our national debt).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwjeRVZG1CY
Real estate bubble
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_bubble
A real estate bubble or property bubble (or housing bubble for residential markets) is a type of economic bubble that occurs periodically in local or global real estate markets. It is characterized by rapid increases in valuations of real property such as housing until they reach unsustainable levels relative to incomes and other economic elements.
As of 2007, real estate bubbles have existed in the recent past or are widely believed to still exist in many parts of the world, especially in the United States, Britain, the Netherlands, Italy, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Spain, France, Poland, South Africa, Israel, Greece, Bulgaria, Croatia, Canada, Norway, Singapore, South Korea , Sweden, Baltic states, India, Romania, South Korea, Russia, Ukraine and China.
U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said in mid-2005 that "at a minimum, there's a little 'froth' (in the U.S. housing market) ? it's hard not to see that there are a lot of local bubbles" [1]. The Economist magazine, writing at the same time, went further, saying "the worldwide rise in house prices is the biggest bubble in history".[2] Real estate bubbles are invariably followed by severe price decreases (also known as a house price crash) that can result in many owners holding negative equity (a mortgage debt higher than the current value of the property)
History of U.S. Stock Market Crashes
http://www.marketvolume.com/info/stock_market_trading/stock_market_crashes.asp
The Crash of 2000 == From 1992-2000, the markets and the economy experienced a period of record expansion. On September 1, 2000, the NASDAQ traded at 4234.33. From September 2000 to January 2, 2001, the NASDAQ dropped 45.9%. In October 2002, the NASDAQ dropped to as low as 1,108.49 - a 78.4% decline from its all-time high of 5,132.52, the level it had established in March 2000.
The cause of crashes:
1. Corporate Corruption. Many companies fraudulently inflated their profits and used accounting loopholes to hide debt. Corporate officers enjoyed outrageous stock options that diluted company stock;
2. Overvalued Stocks. There were numerous examples of companies making significant operating losses with no hope of turning a profit for years to come, yet sporting a market capitalization of over a billion dollars;
3. Daytraders and Momentum Investors. The advent of the Internet enabled online trading –a new, quick, and inexpensive way to trade the markets. This revolution led to millions of new investors and traders entering the markets with little or no experience;
4. Conflict of Interest between Research Firm Analysts and Investment Bankers. It was common practice for the research arms of investment banks to issue favorable ratings on stocks for which their client companies sought to raise capital. In some cases, companies received highly favorable ratings, even though they were actually in serious financial trouble.
More than $8 TRILLION gone
http://images.moneyandmarkets.com/1162/88139.html
Needless to say, Citigroup's nightmare spooked the entire financial sector: Goldman Sachs fell 5.7%. Wells Fargo dropped 7.7%. Morgan Stanley plunged 10.2%. Bank of America cratered 13.9%. And JP Morgan Chase crashed 17.9%.
For someone who doesn’t know what they are doing, they are being overpaid.
YouTube - Wall Street Bailout - Passing Toxic Assets to taxpayers.url
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvBwZcmgZwI&feature=related
↥twinkle↧stinklereplyeditdeletepermalink
The slogan of the decade, our founding fathers gave us the freedom to pursue happiness, not a guarantee of happiness. Even if that's true, why should we care? I mean seriously, besides timeless principles like equal protection, freedom of speech, assembly, the press, and so on, why would we dogmatically commit ourselves to sayings or themes from the remote past.
When our founders were alive, we only had a crude and rudimentary understanding of science, our economy was primitive by modern standards, and even the most enlightened man at the time, would be considered brutish when compared to contemporary thinking.
We might say that happiness is a subjective term, but in fact the vast majority of people do want the same things. There is somewhat of a minimum baseline definition for happiness, which includes access to food, medical care, housing, electricity, clean water, etc.
It seems to me that this attitude is really about blaming the poor for their condition. It ignores factors like the residual effect of the institutional racism built into our system by prior generations, it ignores the real need for advanced education in world that has become exceedingly complex, and it ignores the difficulty of lifting oneself from these sort of conditions. Many seem to get satisfaction and validation from an example of a poor person who managed to lift themselves out of poverty. See, he did it, therefore everyone can do it, ignoring case specific facts, statistics, etc.
it ignore who owns the property
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2PsTgqdiDI&feature=related
Fascist Coupe vs Franklin Roosevelt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRw-OQYDe2M&list=PLAABD0339940FC76A&feature=plpp_play_all [right click]
The Bailouts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvBwZcmgZwI&list=PL93AE62BCCCBB692F&feature=view_all [right click]
Actually the founding fathers said the Creator endowed us with certain inalienable rights among them was pursuit of happiness. My comment was directed toward general opinion that entitlements were not and are not part of the bargain. Yet, the government took over $700 billion of tax payer money to bailout banks that were too big to fail while not requiring any of that money be used to create jobs in the United States and solve the unemployment problem. That money was invested in overseas emerging markets in economies that didn't need the money.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qJMrTa2hWE&list=PL421C77A7A6BB8CFA&feature=view_all
There are supposedly entitlements for corporations and banks, but not for ordinary people. The people should demand their fair share.
I understand that--but that type of comment (as I'm sure you're aware) is most often used by the other side (to disparage the idea of a social safety net); so I would say that we shouldn't lend validation to the idea by using it ourselves (even though we're approaching this from the opposite direction).
Arguably, some of our founders did envision a central banking system (even if a much cruder version of what we have today), and things like FDIC insurance (and even bailouts for large financial institutions) may not be inconsistent with the thinking of founders like Alexander Hamilton.
We might say that we should return to a fed with a single mandate, we should restore Glass Steagall, etc., but I don't think we need to try and look for dubious motives in past actions (that can't really be empirically demonstrated). These are straightforward ideas, and the merit of these ideas can be demonstrated without an appeal to speculative allegations. I'm not saying you're doing that ... but I see this quite often among occupiers, and I think it's both unproductive and unnecessary.
Let's stick to what we can prove, or logically deduce. Humans are pattern seeking animals, but unfortunately, our pattern seeking trait isn't as accurate as we'd like to think it is.
The history of Wall St has been riddled with instability and intrigue from the beginning.
"The year was 1792, and Wall Street had just experienced its first crash, for which William Duer and a secret circle of New York grandees were mainly to blame. They had conspired to speculate on the bonds just issued by the newly created federal government. Soon they found themselves deeply overcommitted and forced to liquidate their holdings, causing the fledgling market to collapse and its manipulators to flee-in Duer's case to debtors' prison; for the more fortunate among them to safer havens out of state."
"Hamilton was a Revolutionary War hero and a founding father. But by the 1790s, he was also the man most widely suspected of harboring elitist sentiments dangerous to the democratic aspirations of the new nation. During the Constitutional debates he had argued on behalf of a lifetime presidency and imagined the Senate as a kind of House of Lords. In his capacity as President George Washington's secretary of the treasury, he had devised a plan for funding the national debt that had accumulated during the war and in the years afterward. The federal government would sell its own bonds to make good on the nearly worthless securities issued by the states and the Continental Congress during the Revolution. Hamilton assumed that the purchasers of these new securities would be merchants, bankers, and others of substantial means. By acquiring these bonds they would help establish the creditworthiness of the new nation. In turn, that would, Hamilton hypothesized, attract capital from home and abroad which would jump-start the commercial and industrial development of what was, after all, an underdeveloped country."
"As the Democratic-Republicans saw it, this was a plot to establish a financial aristocracy like the one ensconced in England. Looking across the ocean they could easily see how an incestuous relationship between the money men and the central government (in England, the monarchy; in America, presumably, the executive branch) threatened to make the government the exclusive preserve of the privileged. The great executive powers of France and Great Britain, so the anti-monarchists believed, floated on a vast sea of public debt. That funded debt had in turn engendered big banking institutions, well-oiled markets for money, new forms of investment, and a whole new class that traded in public securities. An alliance between this moneyed class and the Crown had overawed independent sources of political authority. According to Jefferson the real sin in Hamilton's design was that it would "prepare the way for a change from the present republican form of government to that of a monarchy of which the English constitution is to be the model"
"Jefferson and his allies were not against trade. But they envisioned an agrarian republic, not a commercial one, made up of independent middling farmers trading with Europe only for those necessities not produced at home. In this way the new nation would be immunized against the infection of urban luxury and squalor, the war of class against class, and the moral rot that they felt characterized the Old World. "
"All through the 1790s, publicists, pamphleteers, and politicians warned about bankers and speculators fattening on the public credit. Even President Washington, who in the end favored Hamilton's strategy, worried, and he queried the treasury secretary: Would not the new capital ultimately pose a threat to republican government by "a corrupt squadron of paper dealers"? Hamilton's plan was a bonanza for such people, an unholy alliance of aristocracy and money. These speculators had bought up the securities issued by the states and the Continental Congress at rock-bottom prices from their original holders: desperate veterans, farmers, and other ordinary folk. Under Hamilton's scheme these rich bond buyers could now redeem their once worthless paper at its full face value."
A Long View of Wall Street
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95241895
In our third century our plight is even worse today as bankers and paper dealers (Goldman Sachs) have taken control of our government and we can't afford to buy it back.
[Deleted]
Is anarchy an option? The political controversy today is over the economy, healthcare, taxes, jobs and national debt. The national debt is center stage because Republicans want to cut spending to balance the budget and spare future generation’s unsustainable taxation.
The new Republican Romney and Ryan duo have not yet mentioned anything about what they will do about fraud, deregulation, incompetence and corruption that has affected financial sector for over 40 years. They are blaming Obama for the unethical behavior at banks that led to the financial crisis under Bush and is continuing. Why aren't there audits of every agency in the federal, state, county and municipal government? Is the government too small?
The Congress approved Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, Medicare Drug Acts without raising taxes. This launched the United States on a spending spree that will be billed later. Wall St had provided credit for US expenditures, but Congress should have locked the doors to the Wall St casino when $2.3 trillion disappeared from the Pentagon in one year, 2001.
That Pentagon’s accounting failure is such a huge amount of money that it should have shut the government down immediately. How could our governments have been so easily distracted by jets flying into the WTC Twin Towers? Do you realize how much money $2.3 trillion is? If $700 billion TARP was needed to float the banking system in 2008. What would $2.3 trillion do if it is missing? Where could it have gone?
Let’s suppose the endemic government fraud, deregulation, incompetence and corruption are signals that anarchy has already taken over. That explains a lot. Except it is from the top down, not the bottom up. The 1% are among the anarchists and vice versa.
Max Keiser on Currency Wars Global Derivatives http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSadYgsJ2rQ
Max Keiser on Too Big to Fail http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiaax9GHFL0&list=PL57A38F2F2E292781&feature=view_all
Rumsfeld Announces $2.3 Trillion Missing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJOkdZTHP7Q
Do you go to casinos? Play the slots? And let me ask you another question, do you think its rigged in the house favor? Wouldn't you agree the House has the human animal pretty well figured out at this point? Logically speaking, I can only deduce, there is a high probability that banks are way better at this, than casinos.
Francis,
This post is a continuation of a reply to another post that I thought was interesting.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/hey-ows-idiots-we-the-working-people-owe-you-nothi/
Many people today still have only a crude and rudimentary understanding of science.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZku5KQneL8&list=PL61A84EF774590006&feature=view_all
I don't really think that racism is being institutionalized any longer; in fact, I think it's been quite some time since we can think of it as institutionalized. Look at the 90s generation, for example... there was no prescribed racism there. But what is occurring is that it is being reborn, given a rebirth, and it has nothing to do with parents, society, or the cultural mindset.
I was one of those poor people; if I can do it, anybody can.
I could once play the piano in two different time signatures at once.
Your last statement is BS.
So is your first statement.
Racism is alive and well and institutionalized in the (R)epelican't party, aided by teabagge(R)s.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/08/13/why-the-republican-party-is-racist-and-how-it-got-that-way/
It has a presence, yes. But I think most Tea Baggers are of the 60s generation; what I find even more interesting is the Neo-Nazi like hatred of our young people... this is not something culturally acquired - there has been a rebirth of racism.
It's not a "rebirth" unless it actually died.
It didn't, but it is being reinforced by certain elements, not the least of which is the (R()epelican't party..
My feeling is that in a majority of households it had greatly diminished; there is a new fervor amongst the present younger generation that has nothing to do with parents or education.
Those "households" merely distanced themselves from it.
They were and are, just as bigoted as ever.
I guess you should have read the link.
In fact, you've missed several around here.
Racism never died.
It never will. But I think there is a new level of Neo-Nazism amongst young people that we have not seen before in my lifetime that is directed against all that are brown.
The link, no offense, is just one more polemic. It's all nonsense. Nobody cares if Obama is black or white - the Republicans would have attacked him regardless. Many of our so-called racist white people had hoped that Obama would actually do well. But he hasn't - his presidency from our point of view has been a disastrous disappointment from the very start.
The thing you need to understand about racism in America is that it is present in all; the "blackman" is no exception and he doesn't want equality, he wants superiority, and he doesn't want equal opportunity - he wants greater opportunity.
So, you know, the war rages on... and we shall continue the good fight until we die; there is nothing more that anyone can do.
Quite a cynical point of view, your assumption that all Americans want to feel superior to others based on race. I don't buy that proposition at all.
You say there is a new level of neo-Nazism is spreading through young people. I don't see it. In the last election, the turnout was over 60%, the highest in decades. Many of the new voters were young people voting for Obama and "change" they could "believe in."
Racism does exist, but I don't believe it's an innate human characteristic; it's probably learned behavior that singles out noticeably different people and targets them for the ailments of a given society. Hitler used racism successfully against the Jews, though many could trace their European family lines for centuries. They made an easy target because of pre-existing stereotypes. Marx made some apparently anti-semitic comments, though some people deny that. Two of his most famous works that may be construed as anti-Semitic are "On the Jewish Question" and "A World Without Jews."
My point of all this is simply that regardless of political persuasion, heritage, culture, etc, some people resort to racism because they want other people to blame for societal failures, just as many Democrats blame Republicans and vice versa; liberals blame conservatives; fascists blames commies, etc. etc. etc. I don't think it's racial; it's just so much easier to blame others rather than ourselves.
Marx came from a Jewish background. Didn't his father convert to Christianity so that he could continue being a lawyer?
Yes, Marx was of Jewish heritage. Still, some of his writings seem patently anti-Semitic, but some people deny it. They say his writings were based on the political-economic separatism of the European Jews, and that their pursuit of such isolation was self-destructive. If this last statement was true, Marx, once again, displayed his remarkable gift of prophecy.
By the way check this out.
https://www.thunderclap.it/projects/276-a-cure-for-the-economic-crisis
Thanks. I'm all for worker cooperatives. Right now, it seems the best course for our country to follow.
Well, I typed out what I thought was a reasonable response but the site ate it.
My definition of racism and yours is not the same; mine is much less virulent, suffice it to say there is a deficiency of language.
Points noted...
My apologies for misinterpreting.
[Removed]
The attitude "that it never will", feeds exactly that which you seem to be decrying.
I see the preference for one's own kind, and even xenophobia, as evolutionary - the preservation of identity promotes - to say the very least, a genetic competition - and the superiority of one's own economic logic in support of those genetics.
I think, too, that this presidency has exasperated previous efforts to diminish the divide, this in turn has served to magnify our difference. But not be be mistaken, we were not happy with our past Rep presidents, either.
[Removed]
Well... my impression is that those of African descent really do not want to be white people; those of European descent do not want to be black people - we can go and on but the results will be the same - it's about identity and the preservation of one's own world. The so called "liberal" thrives on dishonest polemics; I think honesty is paramount if we are to resolve racial issues peaceably.
[Removed]
Knowledge is but a one worded abbreviation for a concept, maybe, ten pages long... but what it all breaks down to, eventually, through philosophical search, is understanding. Understanding and knowledge are but euphemisms; the quest for knowledge is born of desire and it is an unstoppable force - we could no longer halt the quest for knowledge than outlaw fornication.
I dunno... I'm Welch, English, Irish, Scottish... Portuguese... Norwegian, German... Estonian, Swiss, Swedish... French, Basque... allegedly Native American... and this is only that which appears over the last dozen generations or so which I can document. And it occurred because each successive generation married outside his cultural comfort zone - it seems love and sex can conquer all. But for me, celebrating diversity would equate to partying like a rock star; who has the time?
Is the African going to celebrate my Portuguese heritage? Is the Native American going to celebrate my English heritage? Is anybody at all going to celebrate my Irish heritage? What of the German? To each his own... but we can't go on like this forever, lying to each other about the difference of our indifference - it will just foment further hatred.
[Removed]
So then, you enjoy feeding that attitude?
You realize there is absolutely no proven truth in what you're saying here?
There is NO genetic element to bigotry.
It's mostly been linked to low intelligence and piss poor education.
Would you like to claim one of those?
Here's an old thread on the subject.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/its-not-about-race/
Actually there is much proof in what I am saying... it's called, for lack of a better term - "evolutionary psychology" - I recognize that the term is not entirely appropriate, that it fails, and if I remember correctly, Howard Bloom addresses this issue but you get the general gist. This is where my years of philosophy led me, without the likes of Bloom or others, and this is what I firmly believe, and more...
There is a genetic component to identity, to identification friend or foe, to racism and xenophobia - in fact, there is nothing contained within the human psyche that is NOT evolutionary.
Bigotry is an entirely different word.
Howard Bloom, the publicist?
Howard Bloom the global warming denier?
Don't that much about it, but you're talking about a highly challenged branch of psychology, not exactly an exact science in the first place, and that's just one of many of it's tenets.
Do know any of the others?
If the result of the behavior, gives the appearance of bigotry, it's still bigotry, and there's still no excuse for the behavior.
Edward Wilson, Robert Wright, others... it's the place where I landed and was much encouraged by the discovery of others who shared my thoughts.
If the result of the behavior... that's my point exactly - opinion is not behavior.
Ed Wilson the entomologist?
Robert Wright the journalist/writer?
Can you answer the question?
Well, Mr Shoez... there is this very disturbing problem - when Descartes separated mind from body as "dualism" he made a huge philosophical mistake - the mind and the body are not separate entities. Modern evolutionary science will not admit of this; they assume the ancient hominid that eventually stood to walk from Africa, was always fully possessed of the current homo sap mind. They will consider an anatomical evolution but few dare to consider the mind's development or the evolution of the human psyche - it's simply not important to them. But imagine that, grasp this thought, wrap your mind around it, momentarily, if you can... modern evolutionary theory is seriously flawed. And I think you're fully capable of typing "shithead" into Google, perhaps you are also capable of researching this as well?
PS: Diane Ackerman is also very good. And I would say that my opinions align on about a 90 - 95 percent basis with these writers; there are areas of disagreement. But I would add to this that there is but only two possibilities - either these writers are correct, or at least on track, or we are 100% wrong about the origins of mankind - both possibilities are distinct and equally valid philosophical presentations.
Our founding fathers also supported the freedom to enslave. It's not your own hard work or success, if others work for you.
You can quote whatever right wing libertarian drivel you want in support of the 21st century enslavement of the 99%. The tyranny of 'free market' capitalism will be overthrown in the end.
Read about dysfunctional economy and culture: How Does That Work? https://www.createspace.com/3852916
Thanks for this useful information.
Slavery had been a part of Britain from before the Roman occupation, and the institution of serfdom can be traced back to the Romans. In feudal society a measure of protection was guaranteed to serfs in return for their service. Imagine a feudal lord and land owner responsible for maintaining a fortress, and farming in medieval times without the convenience of tractors and armored tanks. The founders didn’t invent slavery and introduce it to the colonies. This was how the English manor had been organized for over a thousand years. Slavery wasn’t completely abolished in England until 1833. It’s been replaced by the Industrial Revolution and machines.
Usury can be identified as the problem that causes the economy to crash repeatedly. The problem with this magic is” you can't make something from nothing. Perpetual motion defies the Laws of Thermodynamics. There must be equilibrium between production and consumption to sustain any economy. Usury, i.e. finance (or trade) and any service, useful or not, take material goods but burden some community with their production. A domestic economy that doesn't produce enough material goods or pay its workers enough to buy them, cannot short circuit the necessary equilibrium with finance and trade. That only works for a time and only for the greediest few at the top. To be sustainable for the rest of us, our economy must employ us to make real goods and pay us enough to buy them. Trade is abstract and not relevant to fundamental [real] economy. Making money with money is the most abstract practice and therefore the most dissipative to economy.”
Some idiots (probably MBAs) thought it would be more profitable to outsource labor to lower labor costs, including closing factories in the United States reopening them abroad. This is what Goldman Sachs does for a living. Why do Government economists approve this? Because the field of Obama’s advisors is filled from the ranks of former Goldman Sachs associates:
OBAMA, BARACK
BIDEN, JOE
ALTMAN, ROGER
BRAINARD, LAEL
BUFFETT, WARREN
CLINTON, HILLARY
CRAIG, GREGORY
DONILON, THOMAS
DUDLEY, BILL
ELMENDORF, DOUGLAS
EMANUEL, RAHM
FARRELL, DIANA
FRIEDMAN, STEPHEN
FROHMAN, MICHAEL
FURMAN, JASON
FUDGE, ANNE
GALLOGLY, MARK
GEITHNER, TIMOTHY
GENSLER, GARY
GREENSTONE, MICHAEL
HORMATS, ROBERT
KASHKARI, NEEL
KORNBLUH, KAREN
LEW, JACOB
LIPTON, DAVID A
MINDICH, ERIC
ORSZAG, PETER
PATTERSON, MARK
RATTNER, STEVE
REISCHAUER, ROBERT
RIVLIN, ALICE
RUBIN, JAMES
RUBIN, ROBERT
SPERLING, GENE
STORCH, ADAM
SUMMERS, LARRY
How can there be enough diversity of opinion in such an administration dominated by the philosophy and influence of Goldman Sachs alumni? The nation should expect an administration focused on more of the following:
1) entitlements must be cut, including Social Security;
2) more jobs must be outsourced overseas;
3) more NAFTA-type agreements must be drafted and entered into;
4) strict budgetary policies must be applied to entitlements and especially health care "reform" (whereas the defense department is skirted).
http://my.firedoglake.com/fflambeau/2010/04/27/a-list-of-goldman-sachs-people-in-the-obama-government-names-attached-to-the-giant-squids-tentacles/
Good points, and, true to your conclusions, the last four points are espoused by both candidates in varying degrees and veiled by different language.
The whole mess simply affirms that in a capitalist society, government is simply a tool of the ruling class.
Somtimes I wonder if Romney and Ryan forgot what the Constitution is about. They've turned into bean-counters for the 1%.
Listen to the latest anti-social, anti-collectivism, pro-individualist rhetoric coming from both of them and the Tea Party. It is just propaganda designed to justify union bashing and trashing and create division among the voters. I think the founders were pro-collectivist understanding the importance of unity as evidenced in the preamble. The words "me" and "I" are not in it. The Republicans and faux Tea Party have been marching off the map for quite awhile now.
The preamble to the Constitution says –
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
US Constitution
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Tea Party Rhetoric
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qczuEplfAkQ [right click]
Ryan Republic Rhetoric vs Paycheck Fairness
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oI72hVS3AQ&feature=fvwrel [right click]
There is a humorous side to this polticial mess in that what people claim they support, they most often oppose with a vengeance. The "Constitutionalists" like the Tea Party, etc, that say they want small government actually work against many Constitutional tenets and promote bigger government through massive defense expenditures, control of people's personal lives, and a new imperialism.
The Tea Party did not go on forever. After the Revolution cooler minds prevailed.
The preamble to the Constitution says –
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Too bad those words have so faded into the background.
Marx and Engels defined capitalism as moving from crisis to crisis; a result of supply and demand. The bubbles expand then inevitably collapse. It's part of the system. You'll notice the major economic crises are all post industrial revolution.
Engels and Marx lived before the advent of electronic computers and the Internet. The amount computing power that is available at the fingertips of so many can be harnessed to inform supply and demand and maintain the equilibrium. This isn’t beneficial to profiteers, but is better for consumers.
Max Keiser on Superstitious Trading http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGK4_ItBORc&feature=youtu.be [right click]
I do agree, but I believe Marx and Engels were speaking more about, pardon my use of the term, macro-economics that affect the entire system. A good example that fits the theory quite well comes to mind, the housing crash of 2007-2008.
First, the Marxian theory: capitalists seek out profits in all markets. When they see a certain demand that creates profit they will attempt to maximize that market through all avenues.
The housing demand two or three decades ago was there, but several key factors prevented capitalists from expanding that market. Housing costs of course prevented many of the working class from buying houses. The credit requirements were too strict and subsequent mortgage payments too high for the median workers to qualify. Of course the credit markets are controlled by the banks, which are "regulated" by the government,
So, the capitalists presented the problem and solution to the politicians. Ease the credit markets by federally guaranteeing more loans and slickly manipulating repayment requirements through various feats of legerdemain, including temporary reductions of repayment requirements; the notion of quickly flipping houses to "create" a petty-bourgeois profit boom; lowering income minimums for given loans so that the purchasing suckers could at least pay for temporarily reduced mortgage payments; etc.
This whole magic show worked spectacularly, probably better than the capitalists had originally envisioned. Housing prices skyrocketed, as low-income workers flocked to the new promised land of home ownership.
The fly in the ointment, however, was that all the debt had to be repaid eventually, which meant that the "easy" credit began to tighten as banks scrambled to find more avenues in which to accumlate lendable money: voila--derivatives. That patch worked, at least for a while.
The very nature of capitalist cycles, though, spelled doom. (The Marxian theory is that capitalists, seeing the juicy profits, continue to supply until they create an oversupply.)_Developers scrambled to build more houses. Flipping became harder, because new tracts were springing up like weed patches all across the country. Fewer people bought as housing prices escalated even further, and demand slipped, but supply did not.
Then the whole shebang began to unravel. The large investment banks found themselves in a real pickle, as all the credit sleight of hand fell apart.
We know the rest of the story. Here in the Las Vegas area, housing tracts sit unfinished, foreclosed homes dot every neighborhood, real-estate value has collapsed along with several major banks and the economy.
It's just the nature of the beast.
A lot of people think the Housing Bubble that just collapsed was not caused by capitalists but by greedy opportunists, predatory lending practices with fraudulent intent. After a certain point there was not enough capital to pay the mortgage over a 30-year term.
Predatory lending typically occurs on loans backed by some kind of collateral, such as a car or house, so that if the borrower defaults on the loan, the lender can repossess or foreclose and profit by selling the repossessed or foreclosed property. Lenders may be accused of tricking a borrower into believing that an interest rate is lower than it actually is, or that the borrower's ability to pay is greater than it actually is. The lender, or others as agents of the lender, may well profit from repossession or foreclosure upon the collateral.
The subprime mortgage part of this is worse than predatory lending. The toxic assets were redistributed repackaged and sold as CDO to investors around the world with the responsibility of loan servicing left to someone else.
Keiser Report Vampire Bank Hunter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3L32RIkqNk&feature=relmfu [right click]
Keiser Report Big Bad Banks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KheJE71GzpA&feature=g-vrec [right click]
The unprecedented increase in house prices between 1997 and 2005 produced numerous wide-ranging effects in the economy of the United States.
In 2005, 1,283,000 new single-family houses were sold, compared with an average of 609,000 per year during 1990–1995. The largest home builders, such as D. R. Horton, Pulte, and Lennar, saw their largest share prices and revenues in 2004–2005. D. R. Horton's stock went from $3 in early 1997 to all-time high of $42.82 on July 20, 2005. Pulte Corp's revenues grew from $2.33 billion in 1996 to $14.69 billion in 2005.
In March 2007, the United States' subprime mortgage industry collapsed due to higher-than-expected home foreclosure rates (no verifying source), with more than 25 subprime lenders declaring bankruptcy, announcing significant losses, or putting themselves up for sale. The stock of the country's largest subprime lender, New Century Financial, plunged 84% amid Justice Department investigations, before ultimately filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on April 2, 2007 with liabilities exceeding $100 million.
In the wake of the mortgage industry meltdown, Senator Chris Dodd, Chairman of the Banking Committee held hearings in March 2007 in which he asked executives from the top five subprime mortgage companies to testify and explain their lending practices. Dodd said that "predatory lending practices" were endangering home ownership for millions of people. In addition, Democratic senators such as Senator Charles Schumer of New York were already proposing a federal government bailout of subprime borrowers like the bailout made in the Savings and Loan crisis, in order to save homeowners from losing their residences. Opponents of such a proposal asserted that a government bailout of subprime borrowers is not in the best interests of the U.S. economy because it would simply set a bad precedent, create a moral hazard, and worsen the speculation problem in the housing market.
US Housing Bubble Causes cited in Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_housing_bubble#Causes [right click]
Actually your entire comment and wikipedia's brief summary supports my premise. They simply choose to blame the pawns rather than the kings.
The Housing Bubble is scapegoated to cover an even larger economic crisis/scandal caused by repeal of Glass-Steagall.
Max Keiser Vampire Banker Hunter part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2pDFmgejsQ&feature=youtu.be [right click]
Max Keiser Vampire Banker Hunter part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA6DKScMROQ&feature=youtu.be [right click]
Thanks for the links. I will peruse them. The banksters and industrialists own the country.
Who designs a system, one as important to all of society, as the financial system, that is designed to break down periodically.... and everyone thinks thats just OK?
As an engineer if I were to submit a system design that was expected to self destruct periodically at my job I would be fired.
"You’d expect people in the financial sector could learn from their mistakes instead of making the same ones over and over with increasing severity, or finding new ways to screw things up!. Each a worse debacle than the earlier one."
Not when you find out they've done it purposely. Catherine Austin Fitts tells us exactly why its happening from her experience as Assistant Secretary of Housing during George H.W. Bush. No-one else has come out with "first hand" information like this...
http://occupywallst.org/forum/assistant-sec-of-housing-catherine-austin-fitts-bl/
You forgot the dot-com crash.
The U.S. economy cycles roughly about every 5 years. Expect the next crash to come due sometime next year.
Since the economy is so weak right now, and interest rates already very low, this next down turn may turn out to be doosy.
Tighten your seat belts folks, 'cause we could be in for a ride.
Which bubble or bubbles will it be this time? Education, Healthcare, Entitlements?
If the Republicans win there will be more wars. Have you been listening to Romney, lately? He wants more military spending. Hah! Not that anyone’s child should enlist to engage in wars of American aggression.
The economy hasn’t recovered from the last economic collapse, only Wall Street and stock prices appear to have recovered. The catch is that Federal Reserve’s QE has inflated the dollar giving the appearance that the value of the market has risen.
Kaiser Report Vicious Boom and Bust Cycle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TpbxORxmnY [right click]
Romney says he will create 12 million jobs! Doing what? Waging war. Working for the VA. Spying on Americans.
The economy will falter next year no matter who wins. It has nothing to do with politics. It is simply mathematics not unlike that for the vibration of a string. And as you mention the economy has very little in reserve to dampen the falter.
The only question is how will it be handled. I'll admit, I personally prefer not to see Romney in the driver seat. He is plain crazy.
Plus, to say our founders gave us freedom, implies they somehow owned it in the first place (and they would be the first to point out the fallacy in this thinking). They simply restated the human aspiration for freedom, they put it on paper, but they didn't invent it.
The colonist simply couldn’t rent a boat, cross the Atlantic and set up shop independently. The colonies were the consequence of the English throne giving them land grants, patents, financial support and protection. Initially the ties between the throne and the colonies were very intimate. The Crown gave them a colony. The colonist took over the whole continent.
Most Americans I know have no concept of what being a royal subject means. The monarch might have had absolute powers of life and death over everyone in the kingdom. English retaliation to rebellions had crushed subjects routinely.
A History of Britain Revolutions http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fc7S4Chk_-A&list=PL5C916DEF57882E44&feature=plpp_play_all [right click]
The US Constitution is one of the great documents in history. Americans may feel that it is unique, written in a time when no democracy had been formed since antiquity. Amazingly, it is comparable to another document written nearly a hundred years earlier.
The Glorious Revolution Bill of Rights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolution#The_Bill_of_Rights [right click]
By this time the English had established a tradition of human rights. The colonists were Englishmen conveniently separated from the Crown by the Atlantic Ocean and with an unbounded western frontier in which to flee.
After the revolution, colonists still depended upon Europe for financial support and trade.
Of course, and the American Constitution was a great milestone in history. It reflected the aspirations of the English enlightenment to a large degree (although there were also various competing self interests that influenced the formation of the United States, along with enlightenment philosophy, common law history, and various other less significant influences).
There is a view that the American Revolution was a revolt against taxes. Is not paying taxes an integral part of being American? Two hundred-thirty-six years later the United States is in economic upheaval. Perhaps the American Government should raise taxes, commit to job growth through job creation on national projects at the state and county level.
Well, it was more than just taxes. It was British troops invading homes, it was colonial economics, etc. Paying taxes to a government sucks much more when you don't consider the government your own. Nonetheless, at this point, taxes is perhaps the least of our problems.
The colonist decided they weren't going to foot the bill for growing the British Empire. And then went on to grow the American Empire in the footprints of the British Empire a century later.
Do we know what we are doing?
Well, after nearly 10 years in the Army, Iraq (2004/05), I'm pretty aware of what American hegemony looks like (so I suppose my answer is yes, I know what we're doing, I know why, and it stinks) :)
From: The American Dream Is A Myth
Income inequality has become the subject of much debate in this country, in large part because of the Occupy Wall Street movement.
In his latest book, The Price of Inequality, Columbia Professor and Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz examines the causes of income inequality and offers some remedies. In between, he reaches some startling conclusions, including that America is "no longer the land of opportunity" and "the 'American dream' is a myth."
While we all know stories of people who've moved up the social stratosphere, Stiglitz says the statistics tell a very different story. In the last 30 years the share of national income held by the top 1% of Americans has doubled; for to the top 0.1%, their share has tripled, he reports. Meanwhile, median incomes for American workers have stagnated.
Even more than income inequality, "America has the least equality of opportunity of any of the advanced industrial economies," Stiglitz says. In short, the status you're born into — whether rich or poor — is more likely to be the status of your adult life in America vs. any other advanced economy, including 'Old Europe'.
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/american-dream-myth-joseph-stiglitz-price-inequality-124338674.html
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2PsTgqdiDI&feature=related
Fascist Coupe vs Franklin Roosevelt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRw-OQYDe2M&list=PLAABD0339940FC76A&feature=plpp_play_all [right click]
The Bailouts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvBwZcmgZwI&list=PL93AE62BCCCBB692F&feature=view_all [right click]
Perhaps we just need to put real incentive in place to get the cycle of repeats to end.
PETITION: Congress must put Wall Street reform back on the agenda: http://act.boldprogressives.org/sign/sign_glasssteagall/?source=bp
Also,
PETITION: Jail the Bankers: http://act.boldprogressives.org/sign/sign_wallstreet_bankerjail/?source=bp
Put the lock back on the door to Pandora's box and do a Madoff makeover to the economic criminals.
GeriTroll! Think spamming the forum with these two petition links will save you?
http://occupywallst.org/forum/poll-is-dkatoday-the-leader-of-an-obama-infiltrati/#comment-749253
mae'r haul yn gwenu heddi
The big crash, we have not seen yet but it is coming. As far as the overpriced market goes, I expect that to be taking a shit around Nov or Dec of this year. With a season of bad crops throughout the US, you can also expect inflation to rise on the first part of the year and this will cause the economy to slow down more
The government has its economic secrets.
Max Keiser on Magical Thinking http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgNgPY3B4jI [right click]