Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Future Economists Will Probably Call This Decade the 'Longest Depression'

huffingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 99 posts

Re: Future Economists Will Probably Call This Decade the 'Longest Depression'

#81

Post by hwstar »

jerf wrote: post #67
hwstar wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The things that are broken can't be solved by the states. The patchwork of state laws would become a great hinderance. The federal government is corrupt and needs to be reformed. We need campaign finance reform, and the ability to recall federally elected officials.

If diversity is real, then the things that are broken can't be solved by the central authority practically. Is there not real diversity? Are there not legitimately different cultures in different parts of the country? Do these cultures not call for different solutions? You really can't have both of a political culture of "celebrating diversity" and "one-size-fit-all from Washington DC solutions".

There's needs to be core set of laws which must remain at the federal level. States should be able to pass their own laws to suit diversity to a point. If they go beyond that point then the federal government needs to put things right.

Re: Future Economists Will Probably Call This Decade the 'Longest Depression'

#82

Post by bmm6o »

CaptSpify wrote: post #70
bmm6o wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the basis for everyone you know believing this? "Depression" has an objective definition that objectively doesn't currently hold. Do they not believe the reported numbers of the GDP, or are they using their own incorrect definition of the term?

Disclaimer: I am not an economist. Some of their discussions go well above my head, so it's possible I'm mis-understanding\mis-interpreting what they say. This is also why I'm curious as to a source. The one thing I hear a lot is: The statistics we are using to measure this are BS. One example: We don't account for people who are under-employed, which is important to note in long-term depressions such as this one. Th…

There's room for debate in the different numbers that are used to measure employment rates, and you could argue which measure is most important changes over time. But as I understand it, unemployment is a frequent result of an economic depression and not part of its definition, so whether or not there's a depression does not depend on what number is used. Of course, macro measurements don't put bread on the table and obviously jobs matter, and there not being opportunities available in a particular place/time sucks. I'm not denying that. I'm just advocating that people say what they mean and use the correct words to describe their observations.

Re: Future Economists Will Probably Call This Decade the 'Longest Depression'

#83

Post by nitrogen »

jerf wrote: post #60
nitrogen wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt that shifting power to the states will solve many problems; after all it's the states that want to force Christianity on students, ban the teaching of science, deny healthcare to those most in need of it, lower standards for students so many HS grads are still illiterate, defund universities, and hand monopolies to oil, mineral, and telecom companies.

What on Earth do you think the Federal government is, exactly? By what magic is a government over ten million people to be distrusted, but by aggregating 325 million people's government all of which are also ruled over by these presumably nontrustworthy states, are magically transformed into bastions of sense and sensibility? Where's the line, exactly? It's all the same people! Personally, I think it's just you can s…

No, some states actually do a good job at some things while other states completely fail at those things. When you mix the good states with the bad states and form a federal government, you reduce the badness in the bad states.

Re: Future Economists Will Probably Call This Decade the 'Longest Depression'

#84

Post by AnimalMuppet »

Amezarak wrote: post #65
rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the most detailed rebuke I have seen yet. Thank you for adding this to the conversation. My weasley counterpoint is to say that FDR ultimately made more right moves than wrong, and he did not become, as he feared, "the last president". Economic manipulation aside, his public works initiatives like the Tennessee valley authority gave people good work when there was none, and strengthened our national infrastru…

http://economics-charts.com/gdp/gdp-1929-2004.html#table The New Deal had already kickstarted the economy by the time WWII rolled around - although obviously WWII served as an even larger public works and employment program. (The government did, however, have wage and price controls for many decades after the Great Depression.) As you can see in the chart, GDP had already doubled by 1941, returning to pre-Depression…

OK, but Europe was at war starting in 1939, and was trying to buy all kinds of stuff from the US. That's still WWII kickstarting the US economy, even though the US wasn't in the war yet.

Re: Future Economists Will Probably Call This Decade the 'Longest Depression'

#85

Post by AnimalMuppet »

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #3

In the course of selling his New Deal to the impoverished American public, president Franklin Delano Roosevelt pitched his reforms by stating: "It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another, but above all try something. The millions who are in want will not stand by silently forever while the things to satisfy their needs are within easy reach." The most frustrating par…

The problem is that the situation is bad, but not so bad that it can't be made much worse. It's not enough to "try something" - you have to try something that at least will not hurt. If you don't know which way your thing will go, at an absolute minimum be willing and ready to bail on it very quickly if it works out badly.

Re: Future Economists Will Probably Call This Decade the 'Longest Depression'

#86

Post by AnimalMuppet »

Mikeb85 wrote: post #73
clarkmoody wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FDR tried lots of thing that had the opposite of the intended effect. Invoking the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, Roosevelt declared that "all banking transactions shall be suspended." Banks were permitted to reopen only after case-by-case inspection and approval by the government, a procedure that dragged on for months. This action heightened the public's sense of crisis and allowed him to ignore traditional re…

Look at an economic chart pre and post New Deal. Not only did FDR's policies help the US recover from the depression, it set the framework for the strongest economic growth of the US' history (pre-1930s growth was much slower than it has been post 1945). Furthermore, your source is as partisan as they come. 'Austrian' economics exists pretty much only on the internet. Mainstream economics has progressed since 1930.

But post 1945, Europe had been bombed nearly to destruction, as had Japan. Even Russia had been devastated. The US was exporting to the whole world as everybody else tried to rebuild. You can't take 1945-1970 US economic growth as a measure of the quality of FDR's economic policies.

Re: Future Economists Will Probably Call This Decade the 'Longest Depression'

#87

Post by AnimalMuppet »

paulpauper wrote: post #30
jsn117 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The terms "depression" and "recession" aren't just catch alls, they have actual definitions. And "we" (depending on the country, i'm assuming USA) are not in either.

depression/recession has now been redefined to mean 'economy is not how we want it to be'

No. They haven't been redefined. They are used that way by people who are ignorant of the definitions, careless, or trying to mislead.

Re: Future Economists Will Probably Call This Decade the 'Longest Depression'

#88

Post by AnimalMuppet »

mywittyname wrote: post #50
xlm1717 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my opinion, the most frustrating part is that despite our hyperconnectedness, people still believe the propaganda that we're not in a depression or that our leaders got us out of the recession. Future economists will call the decade the "longest depression" not out of 20/20 hindsight, but simply because there will no longer be a need to make things seem rosy.

The propaganda is the statement that we are in a depression. We are NOT in a depression, nor a recession and have not been for several years. So, in fact, historians will not at all call this period a depression. More likely, they will look back and wonder why so many people thought things were bad when, by all objective measurements, things were actually quite good. Low inflation, low commodities prices, decent wage…

But still too high unemployment. That's why people feel like it's still a recession.

Re: Future Economists Will Probably Call This Decade the 'Longest Depression'

#89

Post by AnimalMuppet »

ch4s3 wrote: post #69
Zach_the_Lizard wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>farm subsidies The phrase 'Farm subsidies' doesn't quite do justice to what was put into place. The phrase sounds like just giving farmers money to grow stuff, which people might think is inefficient but probably not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. After all, these sorts of subsidies should increase supply and lower prices. The reality is there's a tangled web of price controls, subsidies, import q…

Yeah, but we can grow corn and can't grow sugar. It a classic protectionist policy. Since HFCS and sugar are basically perfect substitutes, and the price of HFCS is so low it hardly seems to matter to consumers. Its also a stupid policy.

> Yeah, but we can grow corn and can't grow sugar.

Both Florida and Hawaii would like a word with you. For that matter, Utah, Idaho, and Colorado (at least) used to grow large amounts of sugar beets. That ended in the 1960s or 1970s (I wasn't old enough to know if government policy changes were responsible).

Re: Future Economists Will Probably Call This Decade the 'Longest Depression'

#90

Post by AnimalMuppet »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #8

> Back before 2008, I used to teach my students that during a disturbance in the business cycle, we'd be 40 percent of the way back to normal in a year. The long-run trend of economic growth, I would say, was barely affected by short-run business cycle disturbances. There would always be short-run bubbles and panics and inflations and recessions. They would press production and employment away from its long-run trend…

This has bugged me for a while, too. People look at the trend from 2000-2008, and think that it was the long-term trend. But we were blowing a bubble then; why does anyone think that that growth rate was sustainable?
Post reply on HN