UNUSUALLY PROLONGED RECOVERY ?

It's funny to see how the opponents of the stimulus bill now rail against government spending while we are actually in an emergency where this sort of spending is recommended by all mainstream economists.
Where were these protectors of the tax payer when the Bush administration spent trillions for an unnecessary war, decrease taxes for the wealthy class, gave out no-bid contracts to corporate cronies, have the oil execs write energy bills, etc.?
You can make your comments as long as you want, but you have simply lost your credibility.

By the government using our tax dollars to give to businesses that do not have to deal with the people actually paying them(the business') for their failures makes the money impersonal. There is no stigma attatched, no responsibility. It matters not to them (government nor the businesses) that John Doe and his wife and 2.5 children are struggling to pay bills and groceries and clothes and taxes... are getting nothing in return for the senseless spending spree the government is on is sinful, discusting and down right illegal.

Scarabus writes,

"No academic historian could maintain credibility among the majority of his/her colleagues if she/he decided in advance how the story should come out and then cherry picked data to make that dishonesty sound credible."

Very careful wording there, sir

Do we all agree that systemic corruption covers both halves of the political divide? Do we see that the creation of lies by people who know better, but who are paid to misrepresent the meaning of actual events - is wrong? In better times such people might resist, as journalists or academic specialists, but not now..All present in the corporate cesspool must conform to expectations embedded in their job description.

Our only rival to our brand of Procrustes Bed rant, the tailor-made idiocy of declaring proof based on political dictates, is Beijing and the CCP. Prior to that it was Moscow. Before that Berlin, Rome, and so on.

What those others did, however patriotic it seemed, was more openly called, "Propaganda.".

Want a scientific research grant today? It's back to the days of Galileo, isn't it?

A shift rightwards largely predetermines what you may say in print. Instead of collecting irrefutable evidence, the newbie first determines what is 'acceptable discovery' to others. Next, care is taken (to satisfy those who hold the purse) that no waves will be made, because those who control the process, also hold a newbies' career in their grasp.

Fail to conform and that job at NASA is toast. Declare global warming ain't no hoax and the EPA brass may not need your counsel further, until another President sweeps away the zealots, assuming he can..

The joke today about being 'politically correct' is that the trend covers both sides of debate. On the left it's passive, snooty, and Puritanical - thou mustn't!

On the right, it gets sillier and more dangerous quicker. Standard of proof too often consists of a circularity - 'I don't care what the facts are because whatever I believe must be true!' Asked to elaborate an authority figure whose work they neither understand nor could hope to accomplish by themselves - will be cited with religious reverence..

'I have a prejudiced belief and so-and-so sort of agrees, therefore end of argument.' That's all it takes.

Typically the right [once a bastion of eloquence, caution and deference, witness Buckley Sr.] jumps first to personal attacks, slander, libel, defamation, character assassination. If that doesn't work it's incitement to riot, insurrection and homicide.

Their new conception that facts first must satisfy prejudices, treats any disagreement in the most off the wall manner - e.g Ike was a Commie.

Had either side been willing to meet half way, who knows, we might have a stable country again. But we don't. Nearly half the population seems perfectly content to stand by their favorite economic fictions to bankrupt us all. 'That'll learn em! Don't you dare mess with God's word in the holy koran of economic doctrine.'

Pity. Nobel winners or not, Economics, like Politics and Philosophy before it, was and is, theological. It simply isn't up to the scientific task of handling all the variables life throws in our path. Instead of recognizing this, and moderating policy accordingly, debate now revolves around which set of fabulously misunderstood generalizations is to be dominant. Since no one will admit that no one has a monopoly of understanding on Reality, the struggle is now over which blind prejudices are to be believed and acted upon.

These are the new Dark Ages. Terminally divided, we are awash in superstitious manias ardently espoused by people with incredibly short fuses, and even less capacity to absorb detail.

Use proportion to weigh and balance facts fairly? Unthinkable! .Fascistic! Communistic!

Impartiality? Too sane for our times

FDR was a communist pig. His new deal screwed the economy for ten years. After the recession of 1920-21, the fed raised interest rates, they cut spending, and they didn't bail anyone out. The economy recovered by 1922. The new stimulus package, which is really a porkladen fleecing of the citizens of the US is going to send us into a long protracted recession. We may have a slight pick up with some of the trillions pumped into the economy, but when the jobs end and the interest has to be paid back, we will be screwed. We have retards spending our current and future tax dollars like a bunch of drunk pirates.

History is just that: a story. The trustworthiness of the story depends on the honesty and competence of the "narrator."

No academic historian could maintain credibility among the majority of his/her colleagues if she/he decided in advance how the story should come out and then cherry picked data to make that dishonesty sound credible.

However, if you are a non-academic, spending your time at one or another conservative think-tank, you have nothing to worry about. A recent example is Amity Schlaes, the English major become journalist who has written a revisionist history of the New Deal. By picking and choosing data dishonestly and/or incompetently, she purports to "prove" that FDR's New Deal hurt rather than helped during the Great Depression.

In contrast, Paul Krugman, a Nobel Prize winning genuine economist with a world-wide reputation, chooses data honestly, chooses data that are important rather than incidental, and not surprisingly comes to exactly the opposite conclusion.

So which are you going to trust: the journalist who spends her time almost exclusively with neo-con fellow-thinkers, or the Nobel Prize winning academic who prevailed in the open market of ideas among critical colleagues of all ideological persuasions?

Me, I'm going with the professional economist rather than the journalist. History shows that the New Deal did work. The worst year before the war was 1936, the year when conservative critics had pressured FDR into cutting back on spending.

Yes, the stimulus packages will slow recover to a near halt, just like FDR's did. Too, bad congress never had an honest history class to learn from....or maybe they were sleeping, tripping, stoned, or just skipped that class. then again the recent history books are high on female figures not even in our history,and low on USA actual history. Lets just get into a group and let the gifted child do the work.... and everyone gets an A for effort... Subjects to choose from: how do you feel about your influence on your history, how the ant had to share all the food he spent all fall harvesting with the other ants that just watched him work, or how only a few intellectuals actually know what everyone else needs.

Starting saving your pennies.

It took over a year to admit a recession of a year's duration.

Only recently has the IMF said - 'Oh look! Golly, we're in a Depression now too!'

So I guess that means that this "simple correction" stuff is (what was Nixon's term?) "Inoperable?"

The idea that Depressions may be 'unusually prolonged' seems redundant and obtuse. No?

The only people who predicted that this was going to be a quick fix were

a/ those who failed to admit it was possible because "The Economy Is Strong!" Very reassuring campaign slogan that one.

b/ those whose policies pushed us over the economic cliff on the advice of the same people who said, "The Economy Is Strong!"

We're so lucky to have such great communicators working feverishly to provide us with timely and helpful information.

Aren't we?

Just a little teaser to those who are hanging onto the illusion the the "stimulus" packages are going to make these mean ole nasty hard times go away and we will be all better soon...

I dont know about yu, but Im still recovering from last subject. Moving on. Does Captain Obvious have a name, lol, for above revelations...