Skip to comments.We’re Going Into the Greatest Depression: (shortened)
Posted on 06/28/2013 7:26:10 PM PDT by Kartographer
click here to read article
“there will be no fleeing..”
If the world crashes? Well, of course we will all be in deep doodoo, but those in the US will be drowning in it.
If push comes to shove, I can survive here on virtually no money. How many in the USSA can do the same?
I’ve got Graham crackers, chocolate and marshmallows in my GTHOOD bag.
When the SHTF, the little woman and I are having s’mores.
Pretending that a depression is not coming is really poor investment advise.
Interest rates are rising and even at just the small amount it has is ready bottoming out the mortgage market.
Between the the various city state and municipal governments being in did financial do-do the raising interest rates will soon be eating up the lion share of their tax revenues they will either have to raise taxes, which they already have raised again or again or cut spending to the bone.
The era of free money from eh FED can’t not continue, but when it stops the economic repercussions will be worse than a crackhead going cold turkey.
With nearly 50 million Americans on food stamps, 100 million on welfare, and no economic progress in sight, it wont be long before the world as we have come to know it changes drastically.
When you go through the real numbers unemployment level when part-time workers are included is 14.3%meaning that one in seven of every potential full-time employee in the U.S. economy is not able to earn a proper living wageand thereby contribute to the snails-pace of economic growth.
It’s been months since even enough jobs were created to cover new people entering the workforce, much less jobs for those who are out of work the the types of jobs being created are overwhelmingly low paying what we use to call entry level positions and part time jobs. The part time will only grow as business are force to avoid the cost of Obamacare to make ends met.
And every day the Federal government its digs the debt hole just that much deeper, They are so deep now they have just about come out the other side.
I could go on, but believe me you ain’t seen nothing yet like what’s a coming.
The unemployed are called slackers, and the economy does not depend upon slackers.
If you go back in Time merely to the 1970’s you will see that women entered into the work in large numbers.
Current slackers are simply returning the workforce back to the Historical norm of one worker per family unit...although it isn’t going back to the 1960’s gender bias.
Which is to say, unemployment and the economy will grow. It is to be expected.
Rising interest rates are a sign that our economy has recovered.
I differ the only thing growing the economy right now is free money and when its gone so will be what little growth we have seen.
What’s driving the stock market - the Fed. Most if not all of the growth in the market over the past few years been due to the Fed’s massive QE easy money stimulus. The money had to go somewhere. You can print money at that kind of rate and not expect it to bite you in the ass as some point.
Lots of countries have free money from central banks. Japan. Europe.
The difference in the U.S. isn’t the free money, Tokyo and Berlin already have that.
Nope. The difference is oilfield fracking. Web 3.0. 3D printing. Electric cars. Hyper-farming. DNA programming in medicine. Entertainment streaming like Netflix and HBO Go. Cloud computing. Big Data. Crowdsourcing.
In other words, the difference is our private sector. That’s why the U.S. has sustainable growth.
It ain’t about the free money. Others have that and have still lost decades.
You’re wrong and I can prove it.
Do you have a job?
The difference between then and now is debt. Household debt today is 3x what it was in 1946 - the last and the only date in which conditions were at all similar.
Not only is the federal government in as much debt as they were in 1946 and 1947 - so are state governments and local governments. Total debt is up about 50 percent from 1946-7.
The response of the Truman government was to cut back the size of the debt and spending by around 50 percent, slashing the heavy war debt and getting the government on the right footing.
The other problem is this - look at the demographics. We are not only seeing the destruction of the current workforce (especially among those under the age of 50), we are seeing historic lows for the overall employment for this sector.
We haven’t even seen yet when the Boomers start to retire (as they have been for the last 2,3 years. The youngest Boomers are now hitting their peak earning years.
Basically, if you aren’t a boomer, this economy is going to **** you over.
Entitlement growth alone, is projected to consume 100 percent of total US revenues by 2030. This doesn’t include any spending on national defense whatsoever. Entitlements already cover 2/3rds of the entire American expenditures, and rising very rapidly.
This would, unless we see serious cutbacks around 30 percent deficits at this point. At present, under the O regime, we are looking at deficits of around 1.5 trillion dollars off revenues of about 4 trillion dollars. That’s close to almost 30 percent overspending now.
This - bluntly - cannot continue without interest rates on US T-Bills increasing.
We have seen the first move towards a higher t-bill regime with interest rates climbing from 1.5 percent to 2.5 percent. Now this might not seem like much, but this is just the beginning.
When the demographic effects start to bite (and they haven’t yet done so), what then? We are right on the cusp of this.
Who’s going to earn the money needed to pay for boomer pensions when the ratio is 1:1 or even worse, given the terrible employment numbers?
Yeah I do. I have no debt either.
What do you make of this?
This is after the 5 percent ‘adjustment’ that they did to cook the books, btw. It marks the highest Debt to GDP since 1945.
The war got as high as 129 percent in 1946, which is the current all-time record.
Greece has interest rates of 10+ percent.
Does this mean that the Greek economy is doing much better than the US economy?
Yes, and it’s not just that money had to go somewhere. It’s the devaluation of the dollar. The stock price goes up because of the devaluation.
Just like peanut butter used to cost $1.00, and now costs $2.00. So it takes more dollars to buy the same amount of stock.
It seems from what I read that the activity you see as signs of a recovering economy is for the most part built on the Fed’s Quantitative Easing, Stimulus or whatever they are currently calling the funny money being created out of thin air by Bernanke.
Just the mention that the Fed might someday slow down its creation of fiat currency caused a huge panic in the stock market recently.
Of course home prices are up. All of the really low end bargains have been snatched up. If home prices are up 12% that is only after they dropped 50% to 60% or more.
In my area, one of the hardest hit, most of the homes being bought are still from the foreclosure backlog. Most are being bought by large investors and converted to rentals or just being held as investments. This information is from a recent newspaper article analyzing the local housing market.
The sad truth is that the economy is still being proped up by the infusion of money from the Fed and would collapse overnight if the Fed just stopped.
And one way or another, it will have to stop someday.
“it will have to stop someday.”
Debt to GDP is now 105 percent. Highest it’s been since 1945.
Obama has jumped it from 65 to 105 in just 4 years. Projecting the end of the Obama years would put the US at 145 percent debt, the highest level ever.
So the ride will stop - but it doesn’t have to stop during Obama’s term. Default won’t likely happen in the next 3 years, but may by 2020.
On what planet does Fed Money have the first thing to do with oilfield fracking?!
Then you aren't grasping the modern era.
No one in the oilpatch is deciding to drill or frack a new well based on whether or not the U.S. is in a federal budget Sequester or not.
Unemployed slackers do not determine economic growth.
I explained that fact in post #24. PAY ATTENTION!
Here's the remedial recap: women entered the workforce en masse back in the 1970's.
The two-earner family was an anomaly.
The current trend is reversing that. You will see *both* economic growth and rising unemployment as that anomaly is corrected.
Key Point: 1-earner family units in the future. This might not be male-dominated, either. Single moms working and stay at home, yet married dads.
Debt may have been higher than that at the end of the Civil War. By the 1870's you had railroad "Robber Barons" and an economic boom.
How did the economy do likewise after WW2?
No, you’re not grasping the modern era.
“In 1960, U.S. government transfers to individuals totaled about $24 billion in current dollars, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. By 2010 that total was almost 100 times as large. Even after adjusting for inflation and population growth, entitlement transfers to individuals have grown 727% over the past half-century, rising at an average rate of about 4% a year.”
In 1960, the US population was 180 million people. With 24 billion dollars in government transfers, this means that the average person received 133 dollars a year. About the price of a dryer for every man woman and child in America.
Today, that amount would be the equivalent of 1000 dollars then, or in today’s dollars, the equivalent would be 7,869 dollars.
That’s not just per household. That’s per person.
That’s the equivalent of 38 weeks of work at minimum wage working 30 hours a week.
America has a serious entitlement problem, when benefits allocated per person approach part-time wages for an entire year. It works out to about 50 percent of fulltime minimum wages.
“How did the economy do likewise after WW2?”
Truman cut government spending by 50 percent in 1947, and the ratio returned to normal by the 50s.
Do you expect Obama to do the same thing Truman did? I don’t.
Goodness, with all of the “crushing” debt, we must be less prosperous today than say, 1940, right?!
“The two-earner family was an anomaly.
The current trend is reversing that. You will see *both* economic growth and rising unemployment as that anomaly is corrected.
Key Point: 1-earner family units in the future. This might not be male-dominated, either. Single moms working and stay at home, yet married dads.”
40 percent of all American children are born out of wedlock today. This compares with 5 percent in 1965, and about 2 percent back in the 50s.
If you, as a single mother, can make 15k a year, every year, without fail, why marry? That’s the exact same amount as a minimum wage single earner family will earn working minimum wage full time for the entire year.
It’s very, very doubtful that you’ll see this arrangment. Maybe in 5 percent of the cases. What you will see in 95 percent of these examples unmarried men, and women, and single women with children.
We’re not passed the 50 percent mark yet, but give it another few years and you will.
Real wages for men are the same today as they were in 1957.
My Grandfather made more money than I ever have.
The men make a little bit more money today then they did in 1947, yes. But by 1958, the men made more back then than they do today.
How do wages for women and minorities compare today to 1957?
...you know, that whole “modern era” thing...
I'm unconvinced that hints at a "Great Depression" looming!
“How do wages for women and minorities compare today to 1957?”
You yourself said that the ‘two earner household is an anomaly.’
Priced out through the economy as a whole and averaging out, the single-earner household earns less today than they have since the 40s. Taking in all the women and men breadwinners (95 percent of all two-income households have men as breadwinners).
We’re 5 years into a depression.
What is happening is that there are simply fewer families. Fewer men and women getting married. Far more unmarried men without work, and far more single mothers working.
Your scenario isn’t been seen at all, where mother works and father stays at home. Only about 5 percent of all married-two income families even have the wife making more, and even fewer of these have the arrangement you’ve cited, about 2 percent of the total married families.
It’s just not happening, and there are good reasons for this. We’re not going to see a return to the 50s because the marriage rate is about half the rate now. We’ll see a growth in single mothers, until most families are a mother with out a father raising the child alone and working.
Why are we seeing this? Because of the way government works. Government has made benefits for the single mom with a child total the equivalent of a single minimum wage full time worker.
The single mother doesn’t need a husband or a job. In fact, if the boyfriend lives with her, they will have 20k a year (more than many single men work), whereas if they were married, this would fall to 14k.
This is, of course, the arrangement that is growing faster than any other -where NO ONE works, you have boyfriend and the girl, and they live off government benefits.
Now you're getting somewhere. Turn this around upon your own mistaken assumptions and see where you've gone wrong. On what planet does oil field fracking have the first thing to do with Fed money?
Don't get me wrong, cheap and plentiful fuel is and will be a godsend. It puts a floor under any downfall, for the people. It'll be bought and sold and exported. Might not ultimately be priced in US dollars, but it's there and has value. It gives advantage to domestic manufacturing, so there's a beginning or rather starting anew possible there, too. Already is in right to work states.
But it doesn't have a thing to do with government profligacy, the ballooning entitlement class, Fed excesses with the currency ... other than tax reciepts, which won't be nearly enough.
There is a core economy forming that creates a basis for rebuilding. That's a very good thing. That's the benefit of what you describe, as it will survive the looming paper and electronic catastrophe, that can only be delayed at this point. We reached the point of no return with the second QE, imho. It can be dragged out for a very long time, though. It'll be more visible looking back. The present will seem close to normal for most, as normal slowly declines.
Those five things can be wrapped up in one word - - "culturally".
Congratulations, liberals... socialists... communists... Democrats.
The problem is you can’t make a prediction based on facts, or fundamentals. There is a psychological element which can make the same base fundamentals play out very differently. Right now, we are in an era where risk has not had consequence for some time, and people have been conditioned to ignore it. If there is a shake-up, and some heavy hitters begin to see their empires threatened, they will pull back to protect themselves. As they do, everyone else may get a pucker moment, and not want to be the ones left holding the bag. Almost overnight, a market which ignores bad news could become a market which panics, and everything could be different. If lending is suddenly seen as risky, you will have trouble.
I agree, there is no guarantee of a depression in the next few years, but I would not rule it out. Those cars which are selling are often leases, the educations people are getting are on credit, most of the government is borrowed, and governments are not getting out of debt. China looks precarious. Especially in Europe, one card pulled out from the wrong bank, or a hiccup for the Euro, and it could trigger a chain of events which would reverberate.
On top of it, we are in a weird psychological state where I think nobody sees any risk to anything. The Boston bombing killed or maimed how many people, and we have already forgotten about it. The Stock Market goes up on bad news. Obamacare is as foreboding as anything, and everyone knows it, but who cares? We are in a weird, risk-blind, uncaring phase which I think will change back at some point. When it does, it will have economic effect.
Plus, in the background, those slackers do affect the economy, as many are not only draining borrowed tax dollars from the government, they are also producing five or six kids, who will do the same. Did you see that girl on the Zimmerman witness stand? She will have six kids before all is said and done. The Idiocracy is real, it is consuming increasing amounts of your tax dollars, making you work harder for less reward (and subconsciously conditioning everyone to see work as less rewarding) and it will affect the economy as time goes on.
From a biology perspective, this is the r-selected environment, and it cannot last forever. The question is when it will shift to K-selection, and how harshly. I would not rule out a shift in a few years.
The way things are going, it will end up being a mistrial.
Are you sure about this?
The whole Zimmerman trial WILL end up in a mistrial, count on it.
I got a car loan for 72 months at 0.9%. Free money. That cannot last. I was going to put money down but why if the money is free? The down payments sits in an investment account. My payment is $380/mo on $26,000. The first year I paid about $120 in interest. I am on the second year now.
You’ll be upside down for five years. If you don’t need to sell it and the vehicle is not totaled in an accident, you should be fine.
I had a down payment saved up but why put money down?
You owe more than the vehicle is worth and will for the majority of the loan. There can be problems associated with this.
The money I was going to put down is earning interest. How could that be mistake?
Assuming that money remains there earning interest (lol, what, half a percent?) and the car is not totaled, you should be fine.
If the car gets totaled and it’s my fault and If I had put the 10,000 as I originally intended to do, that money is still gone in that scenario so what’s your point here?
Assuming that you’ll always have cash in the bank to cover the “gap” between actual value and the balance remaining on the note is not always a safe thing to do. Your “free” money loan is costing you more than you’re getting in interest from having avoided a down payment.
Other than that, I suppose you’re good as gold.
Would you pay a “fine” of $120 per year to keep $10,000 of cash in your possession?
Someone needs to write a book called the The Great Depression of
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
I am all for prepping, and I am covered for any given scenairo. (As should everyone else) However, sometimes I think a lot of people are making irrational decisons, based on fear rather than common sense.
Assuming you do, you mean? That’s far from a certainty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.