Agree or disagree?


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Who-Wil ... snews-1712944905.html?x=0

A history lesson for the less than patient.

In 1929, the economy of the US crashed. Banks started to fail (I am not going into the mechanisations of that failure, but suffice it to say, there wasn't enough control on how banks invested).

Banks failed, business failed. The biggest difference between 1929 and today is the manufacturing sectors. We had one. We don't really have one today.

FDR was elected in 1932, took office in March 1933. Last president to take oath in March. He felt that the lame duck time was too long and nothing was getting done. He was right.

Hoover didn't do shit for the crash. His Laissez-faire approach was to let the system heal itself. It couldn't. The damage was too big and too complex for a natural recovery. Hoover the engineer wasn't aware enough to see that.

FDR comes in and pushes the New Deal. Pieces of which still exist today - SSA and TVA to name a couple.

When FDR ran for reelection in 1936, one of his platform positions was a promise to balance the federal budget. He won, he balanced, the economy went into another tailspin. It wasn't ready to walk under its own power.

The one event that saved FDR from failure was WWII. By 1940, we were on our way to being the arsenal of democracy. Providing the Brits with equipment to fight the NAZI's.

Even without our entry, we had that ramp up. Then came our own entry into the war and the time of perfect employment. 4.0% unemployment. That is considered perfect. There is always a small percentage of the population that cannot work; students, retiree's, parents. They might hold a part time job, quit, become a statistic and fall of the roster in 6 months.

My point is that if we think this economy is ready to walk again, after the crippling damage done to it, we are wrong. And if the GOP really thinks their old school policies are the way to go, think again - their tax plans GOT US HERE.

I feel sorry for those who lost equity, but that's paper wealth. I don't feel sorry for those who cashed in on it and got themselves upside down, or worse yet, outside! I was never a fan of equity loans... it was like margin trading, but the margin didn't come due for 30 years.

From the beginning of the article:

"Companies are grudgingly starting to hire back a few of the unemployed. "

It's what's known as yellow journalism, or spin. The choice of words makes it sound as if companies have hoards of unfilled jobs, that they are jealously keeping unfilled for their own purposes.

The reality is, the economy isn't robust enough to create demand enough to cause businesses to hire to fill a need. And in areas where demand is improving, businesses are slow to hire due to the uncertainty of what it will cost to hire an employee, (taxes and healthcare).

I stopped there.

Yeah, what Andy said. Although I don't get the part about the GOP old school policies and that their tax plans got us here. Wasn't it Clinton who freed up the lending laws that led to the housing bust? Which was a big factor in the whole thing going in the toilet.

I think we need some old school spending policies and lending laws for individuals and for governments. I knew California was broke but I didn't know Illinois was. Or was it Indiana?

I think you will find it was Reagan and Bush I who had more to do with loosening lending laws.

Illinois is a mess... as are several other states...

When it comes down to it, if I had to put real blame on any one entity, it would have to be the former Governor of Delaware, Pete duPont. He set up laws that made DE very bank friendly, which in turn made credit card preditors very happy. That started in 1980 or so.

Isn't ready to stand on it's own two feet again?

Our economy hasn't stood on it's own two feet since 1913.