U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-04-2011, 02:20 PM
 
48,508 posts, read 88,455,406 times
Reputation: 18187

Advertisements

When it hits the fan the nation like always will do what it has to do.That of course will mean alot of losers not prepared for such measures as will happen.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-04-2011, 02:22 PM
 
Location: southern california
61,307 posts, read 79,397,785 times
Reputation: 55458
you have to get rid of the lies first. its not a recession and recovery. its a contraction of the american economy (also european).
you see those UIB checks going out for the 5th year???? (extension granted in aug 2011 by congress for up to 8 years) those jobs are gone friend and not coming back.
another lie---- every time you hear the word "investment" they are talking about debting. investment is spending something you got, usually savings, not signing IOU's.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2011, 09:24 AM
 
2,515 posts, read 1,819,085 times
Reputation: 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huckleberry3911948 View Post
you have to get rid of the lies first. its not a recession and recovery. its a contraction of the american economy (also european).
you see those UIB checks going out for the 5th year???? (extension granted in aug 2011 by congress for up to 8 years) those jobs are gone friend and not coming back.
another lie---- every time you hear the word "investment" they are talking about debting. investment is spending something you got, usually savings, not signing IOU's.
Take a look at the unemployment pay out vs. the claimed unemployment rate. As of 2010 the payout rate corresponded to an unemployment rate of over 17% when they were saying it was 9.8%. Those jobs are gone forever and so those people aren't even unemployed any more even tho they are still getting checks.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2011, 12:28 AM
 
28,668 posts, read 31,280,273 times
Reputation: 29684
Quote:
Originally Posted by Refugee56 View Post
How can we ever get out of this? What would ever cause America's economy to ever boom again?
The way out will involve conservatives and liberals like moving way outside their respective comfort zones. I am not optimisttic this will happen, because America and most other Western countries have become weak and undisciplined. But here's what I'd say we need to do:

--KICK OUR OIL ADDICTION FOR GOOD

For all the screaming about China, almost 50% of our trade deficit is in OIL.

This requires a 3 pronged approach: 1. Conserve and get more efficient (less suburban sprawl land use planning, more fuel efficient cars and homes, raise the gas tax slowly but steadily, by say .05 per gallon per year indefinitely). 2. Drill for more oil and natural gas. 3. Push alternatives aggressively. Natural gas looks like it could be one of our best alternatives that makes economic sense. But we need to research ways to make solar, wind, etc, more economically viable.


--PROMOTE REAL CHOICE AND COMPETITION IN HEALTH CARE

Our health care system is a complete failure. It's horribly overpriced and provides mediocre care (at best). Health insurance should only be for things that cost more than $2500 or more. Everything else should be paid for with health savings accounts. The government or employers could even subsidize these accounts and let employees keep the balance that goes unspent for retirement. Alternatively, if balances build up in their accounts, people could raise their deductibles to more than $2500 to get cheaper insurance rates.

See the book "Who Killed Health Care?" by Reginal Herzlinger for more.

Amazon.com: Who Killed Health Care?: America's $2 Trillion Medical Problem - and the Consumer-Driven Cure (9780071487801): Regina Herzlinger: Books


I also think we need to get rid of corn subsidies as part of health care reform. Also, it should not be possible to use food stamps to buy soda & junk food. School lunch programs also need to be reformed. We will never fix health care until we fix the problem with low quality food (if you even want to call it food).

---SIMPLIFY THE TAX CODE

The complexity of the tax code is beyond ridciulous (for corporations and individuals alike). Get rid of most deductions (except maybe retirement & health care savings), including graduatlly phasing out the deduction for mortgage interest over time. Lower the rates but keep them to where they bring in a little more revenue than before. I also think EVERYONE but the very poorest citizens should pay taxes. It's gotten ridiculous that ~ 47% of Americans pay no income taxes. The bottom 47% will always want more government spending because they're paying little or nothing to fund such spending....but the bulk of additional tax revenues will invevitalby fall on the highest earners.


--DEAL WITH SOCIAL SECURITY & MEDICARE

Part of Medicare's problems could be dealt with by the health care reform listed above. But the age might need to be raised. In many respects, people wouldn't care about Medicare as much if our health care system delivered care at prices people could afford. The age at which people collect Social Security will also have to be raised. One thing that also never gets talked about is that somewhere around 1/3 of Social Security spending goes to Social Security Disability. IMO, I think SSDI has a fair amount of fraud and is used as a kind of substitute welfare. I knew an able bodied guy who got SSDI. Besides wasting the taxpayers' money, it ruined his life, because it took away his incentive to work.


--END THE WARS

I was originally agnostic on the wars, but now I say enough is enough. Howefver, I am not one of those people who thinks ending the wars will fix the problems with the government's deficit. That's delusional.

--HAVE MORE KIDS / ALLOW MORE IMMIGRATION (from educated immigrants)

There's no better way to fix the economic problems than to import intelligent, educated, hard working folks. I wouldn't even be against immigration from poor countries like Mexico IF they and their anchor babies weren't allowed to colllect any social welfare type benefits (not gonna happen...but just sayin').

It would be nice if more middle & upper class Americans themselves would have more kids. This would dilulte the number of poor kids and slow the increase in the growing underclass. Of course, I don't believe the government should tell people how many kids they should have, so this would just have to be left to individuals.

It would also help our economy a lot if we could reduce the number of out of wedlock births. People who have kids out of wedlock kill themselves financially, and their kids generally don't do as well in life as kids born to parents who get married & stay married. Once again, this can't be fixed by government policty, but I really do wish we at a country would take an honest look at the 40% of kids who are born to unmarried women. If we tolerate this as normal, we will become a 3rd World country for sure. Same kind of thing for divorce. For those who get divorced without kids, I say "no problem". But for those who have kids, we have to figure out how to get along together. It would help if our culture didn't idealize romantic love so much, as this is never enough to sustain any long term relationship. (I learned that one the hard way myself).

The thing I see in CD forums and elsewhere is that most people just pick one of the above issues and seem to think "If we'd just fix (fill in the blank) issue, then everything would be magically solved". Usually, the issue presented is the one that requires the least amount of sacrifice from the poster. What really needs to happen is all of the above issues need to be addressed, and very quickly. This can't happen without real sacrifice from everyone.

Since Americans only want the other guy to pay more taxes and/or take a benfit cut; and since the federal government is uber slow in just about everything it does, I am not optimistic any of these changes will be made, let alone all of them. I suspsect America is like the Titanic. We hit the iceberg in 2008 and we're probably going to sink. All of the activity going on now is merely rearranging the deck chairs on a sinking ship.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2011, 12:39 AM
 
28,668 posts, read 31,280,273 times
Reputation: 29684
Quote:
Originally Posted by skytrekker View Post
Both these Presidential candidates are full of it- no matter who wins, they are probably going to have to raise taxes. The current situation has the potential to be the worse period in American economic history since the depression.

FDR tried to basically follow the same moderate course as Hoover- with allot more 'hoopla'. However when the nation failed to pull out of the depression, the far left ate his lunch; he was in the end forced to make reforms that where needed; Starting the FDIC, Social Security, SEC, PLUS taxing the rich and corporations heavily. I frankly do not see how any politician with the negative dynamics that we have today- that are very similair to the End of roaring 20's- only today we are coming off two immense bubbles, IT and housing plus an almost totally unregulated financial system, all recipes for the disaster we have now.

A continuation of the same ultra laissez Faire economics that brought upon this mess, seems an unlikely solution- the current demographics in this country do not portend the same policies of the last 30 years.
I agreed with you until you got to the laissez faire economics thing. Practially no country has that any more. Hong Kong came close, but they are slowly going down the same road of more taxation and regulation. Once regulations become law, people just don't "see" them. That's especially true of wage earners who don't see all the regulations aimed at employment, etc....and 85% of Americans are wage earners.

The other thing you left out was that in the 1930s our debt levels were very low as a percentage of GDP. We spent a lot of money for WW2, and our debt rose to about 125% of GDP. But back then we didn't have these huge entitlement programs to pay for. Social Security & Medicare spending alone will take our debt to GDP well beyond that level in a few short years, with no end in sight. Not a good sign.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2011, 05:12 PM
 
Location: Ohio
22,798 posts, read 15,935,395 times
Reputation: 19278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Refugee56 View Post
I do not see how America will ever get out of this economic recession. Here is why:

1) Mortgages will be harder to get in the future with higher interest rates due to massive inflation and government borrowing. Less people will be eligible and able to save up the 20% downpayment.
That would be the intermediate-future. I figure (as the way things stand now) that the global economy can absorb somewhere between $9 TRILLION and $12 TRILLION before Real Inflation starts exceeding 10%.

Now, there are things that could change, for example, how this Euro-thing plays out and if there are any changes in burses for commodities like oil.

So you're looking at about 2022-2023 when you start getting beat to death with Real Inflation. If there are weather or production problems, or high demand for commodities, then you'll have continued Cost Inflation on top of Real Inflation, which could be a real nightmare.

Most everyone has come on board with me and are now saying the housing market will be flat until the end of the decade. You heard that first from me here on C-D.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Refugee56 View Post
2) We will have to raise taxes at all levels of government eventually as the economic conditions get worse and the revenue of the government goes way down. These higher taxes will cause us to have less money to spend on consumer goods.
But you don't have to raise taxes. In the alternative, you could simply down-size government and cut useless government spending.

Recessions can occur for any number of reasons, but generally it is about gross inefficiency. Recessions clear out all the clutter. A good example is the Bush Recession (Bush the Elder not Bush the Younger). The hand-writing is on the wall and the Defense Industry is winding down, so investors start pulling their money, and shifting it to invest in other sectors of the economy.

It starts slowly, but then accelerates as the full scale of the cutbacks in Defense become known, including base closures, scaling back orders and contracts and such. So for two quarters, you have a slight economic down-turn as Capital, which is cash, credit, labor (people) and resources (like equipment) are reallocated from what are now inefficient sectors of the economy to more efficient sectors.

In the long term, that is good, but in the short term, it has a negative impact on those who are directly effected.

It was a lot like now, just not as in depth. The economy "recovered" because GDP returned to its original mark and started growing so the recession "ended," but the job losses continued to slowly mount. It becomes so bad that by 1994 Clinton has to change the way unemployment is calculated to hide the growing unemployment rate so that he doesn't have "It's the economy, stupid!" thrown back in his face and lose the 1996 Election.

You have gross inefficiency now, but it is no longer compared along domestic lines, it is now global. Paying one single US union worker $48/hour to do something that 24 workers somewhere else can do for $2/hour is just not efficient.

You have gross inefficiency in government at all levels, and that includes quasi-governmental institutions like public schools and universities. You need to force them re-invent themselves to be more efficient, and the only way you can do that is by holding a gun their heads, and that means cutting taxes, not increasing them.

Your health care system is also grotesquely inefficient. Doctors tried to make it efficient and lower costs, like the European system, but Obama's let his good friends and huge campaign donor, the American Hospital Association (AHA) write Section 6001 which bars any move toward the highly efficient low cost European system.

Job losses and unemployment will continue until all of the inefficiency is rooted out, but that also means that many job losses will be permanent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Refugee56 View Post
3) Economic problems are causing salaries to stagnate so we will spend less.
That has to do with the reallocation of Capital and the fact that Wages are a function of Supply & Demand.

If you want wages to increase, tell at least 4 Million of those who lost their jobs to man-up and stop looking for work and just deal with it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Refugee56 View Post
4) Outsourcing of so many jobs overseas continue to limit our consumer wealth.
That's also part and parcel of the reallocation of Capital and making things work efficiently.

It is impossible for the US global work-force to compete against the global work-forces of other countries because of the huge disparities in wages. There is absolutely nothing you can do about that, except wait until their wages rise sufficiently to meet at an equilibrium point where your wages have declined.

That will take 50-60 years. Sorry about that.

Isolating, erecting trade barriers, setting high tariffs on imports, revoking all of your free trade agreements etc, etc, etc that the ignorant espouse will do nothing.

Well, actually it will do something. Instead of being on a free-fall to 2nd World Status and just another has been Empire and really big Belarus or Poland, you'll be on a rocket sled.

Do you know the story of Chevrolet?

It's quite instructive.

Durant gets fired by GM. Durant meets [Louis] Chevrolet, and they team up to design and build cars called "Chevrolets."

What happens next? Simple. Chevrolet captures a huge chunk of the domestic auto market and out-sells GM on every level.

What happens next? Durant takes all of the profits he gets and starts buying up GM stock.

What happens next? Durant acquires 51% of GM and stock and now Durant owns GM. GM is now subordinate to Durant and Durant names himself CEO because he can do that, since he has 51% of GM stock and that makes him the majority shareholder and owner.

So, you want to punish US corporations that off-shore, you want to bar US companies from off-shoring, then go ahead and slit your throat.

Can you say "Chevrolet?" Because that is exactly what will happen.

It's a Global Economy whether you like it or not or want it or not and there is no turning back. You can't even nuke them, because that would just make your lives miserable and worse than things are now.

The US is a mere paltry 4.5% of the Global Market Share. India is 15% of the Global Market Share. Why do you think Ford is opening a plant in India and going to hire 5,000 Indians? To stay alive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Refugee56 View Post
How can we ever get out of this? What would ever cause America's economy to ever boom again?
You can't, and there won't even be a boom again.

Some of you can't seem to grasp the fact that although the unemployment rate in the 1950s was 5%, only 6% of households had two wage-earners.

Again, in the 1970s when unemployment was 5%-6%, only 13% of households had two wage-earners.

In 2008, when your unemployment rate was 5%, you had 67% of households with two wage-earners.

How do you account for that? It's called the "labor participation rate."

When you are done here, and your unemployment rate returns to 5% you'll probably have about 45% of households with two wage-earners, but that would be 1 full-time worker and 1 part-time worker.

In reality, maybe 16% of households will have two full-time wage-earners. That will seriously affect your standard of living then just as it is now. Even when people who lost jobs find new jobs, they don't pay the same. Someone earning $26/hour just got hired at $14/hour and it might be 20 years to never before they earn $26/hour again. The bottom line is that the disposable incomes of households has declined and because it has, there's just no way out.

As things currently stand, it will take 225,000 jobs per month, each and every single month starting now until June of 2022 before your unemployment rate AND your labor participation rate returns to 2008 pre-recession levels.

That's impossible.

Quote:
The U.S. unemployment rate, CBO said, now at 9.1 percent, will remain ``close to 9 percent through the end of 2012,'' Elmendorf said. Last month, CBO estimated joblessness at 8.9 percent this year, falling to 8.5 percent in 2012.
CBO Sees Slower Growth, Continued Unemployment | Fox Business

You know your tax dollars are paying for the "you-Harvards" to spew that nonsense, right? You need 655,000 jobs every single month between now and December 2012 to return your unemployment rate to 8.5%.

That is just absolute nonsense, total fantasy. It could never happen. It's really shocking that you all would tolerate those kinds of lies from your government (plus you're paying to be lied to).

They only way your unemployment rate will be 8.5% in 2012 is if about 3.8 Million through up their hands in despair and disgust and stop looking for work. Once they stop looking, they're no longer counted as unemployed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StoneOne View Post
5) Outsourcing is bound to slow. If overseas economies continue to do well, the price of outsourcing will only grow.
But it will take decades. I figure wages will double (for them -- not for Americans) about every 10 years or so. Right around 40 years from now you should start to get some relief, and 10-20 years after that you should be able to compete globally.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StoneOne View Post
If this recession results in greater unemployment and less spending in the U.S., there will be a downward pressure on wages and the cost of services here, making them more competitive.
Domestically, but not Globally.

The US could focus on domestic-based jobs that cannot be outsourced, but that takes real leadership from either the president or Congress and there hasn't been any leadership from either for about 25 years.

If the sole focus is going to be "infrastructure" and health care, that just isn't going to cut it because that is driven mostly by tax revenues.

Shifting 85% of your freight from over-the-road trucks to rail would employ about 3.5 Million to 4 Million over the first 4-5 years and keep them permanently employed.

Rapid mass transit systems would be something else. I don't see much evidence, in fact no evidence of long term planning and positioning the US for the future. Bio-fuels are not going to work. Instead of paying more for gasoline, people end up paying more for food (it would be cheaper just to pay $6/gallon for gasoline).

Natural gas won't work either. If the burden for the infrastructure costs are not shifted to the tax payer (a losing proposition) then the consumer pays for the infrastructure costs and that makes it unattractive price wise. It would also destroy the economy of scale in the petro-chemical industry and the end result is higher prices for everything, especially food.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StoneOne View Post
Disaster will only occur if the government continues to print money, raise taxes and pay for inefficient services, not to mention subsidies to corporations or foreign military adventures.
And that is exactly what the government will do.

You must subsidize your corporations to offset two facts:

1) Foreign corporations pay less taxes; and

2) Foreign corporations are subsidized by their governments.

If you don't subsidize your corporations, then they will have a difficult (but not impossible) time competing globally. In lieu of subsidizing corporations, you could just lower the tax rate, or alter the tax scheme, which would be fair to all corporations, not just those that contribute heavily to campaigns.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck22b View Post
- The World is growing more diverse and more intertwined - America has already been the melting pot of the world... potentially the US can be a role model of how nations intertwine and interact.
Role Model? You mean like illegally over-throwing the Honduran government like Obama did 2 years ago?

Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
Well said goozer..I'm still waiting for the government to decide that we are in a recession.
Unless this time they are deciding to skip the "recession" and go right to depression.
Fortunately the government gets to decide how to "define" recession.

Quote:
Originally Posted by colleeng47 View Post
The whole social security thing has me really ticked. I'm a boomer, and will retire in about 5 years. I can't imagine how they would raise SS taxes, since such a large chunk is taken out of my check now. What annoys me is all the money we've all been paying into SS all these years was spent by the government, so now our current contributions are paying for those on SS now, instead of paying them from reserves.
You're going to be double-taxed. You already paid the Social Security Tax once when it was deducted from your paycheck, but your government spent it all and the only to get it back is to raise taxes. The government could try to convert Social Security Trust Fund from non-public debt to public debt by selling securities, but that would still require a tax increase.

The government could also shift money from the General Fund to cover the Social Security Trust Fund, but the General Fund is your taxes, so you're still being double-taxed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John the Builder View Post
Do any of you remember when in U.S. history U. S. eliminated tariffs, jobs went overseas, Americans like now, lost jobs, income, U.S. lost tax base; U.S. realized there error, put tariffs back on but then the cost of U.S. products became so expensive Americans couldn't afford to buy them? What time period was that in? I seen this on the History channel.
The last time you slapped tariffs on things you had the Great Depression.

You have free trade agreements because you had two choices:

1) Refuse free trade agreements and lose 100% of your jobs or

2) Accept free trade agreements and lose 70% of your jobs.

Your government did the right thing, even though you don't understand it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip T View Post
US can build in and for US.
The US can't.

First, the US doesn't have near enough labor, and second, what labor you do have is ignorant, uneducated and ill-equipped to work and provide for your quality of life and standard of living.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticaltyger View Post
--KICK OUR OIL ADDICTION FOR GOOD
Not possible. You have 49 operating oil refineries, but only 17 of those 49 produce gasoline. The other 32 are producing the Extravagant American Life-Style™.

Giving up oil means giving up your life-style. I'm not convinced any of you are willing to do that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticaltyger View Post
2. Drill for more oil and natural gas.
That won't stop imports. The issue isn't oil, rather the issue is the TYPE of oil. You need light sweet not light sour. And even for gasoline where you can use intermediate grade oil, it has to be sweet intermediate (like West Texas Intermediate) not sour (like East Texas Sour).

Every pharmaceutical drug on the market since 1994 contains light sweet crude oil (and you have none).

Are you willing to give that up? Even if it means you or people you know will die or die sooner?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticaltyger View Post
--PROMOTE REAL CHOICE AND COMPETITION IN HEALTH CARE

See the book "Who Killed Health Care?" by Reginal Herzlinger for more.
She's a clueless idiot.

The primary malfunction in your health care system is that you allow the hospitals to illegally operate as Cartels so that they can illegally collude to illegally fix prices.

Once you eliminate the Hospital Cartels, 50% of your problems are over.

Another 25% of your health care problems can be eliminated by getting rid of hospitals and adopting the Clinic Model like Europe uses. Your doctors tried to help you, but Obama let his good friends and campaign donors the American Hospital Association (AHA) write Section 6001 which bars you from having an health care system like Europe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticaltyger View Post
---SIMPLIFY THE TAX CODE
Then use a VAT or National Sales Tax. Progressive and Flat Taxes are manifestly unfair. A Flat Tax would work, but only where the Cost of Living and Purchasing Power Parity are uniform throughout. It might be possible for some States to use a Flat Tax in lieu of a Progressive Tax, but the federal government cannot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticaltyger View Post
--DEAL WITH SOCIAL SECURITY & MEDICARE

Part of Medicare's problems could be dealt with by the health care reform listed above. The age at which people collect Social Security will also have to be raised.
Neither of those things will work. Just because people live longer doesn't mean they are physically or mentally capable of working longer. Nothing like forcing employers to operate at a loss with a bunch of tired old skins.

Part of the health care problem is the unique American attitude. So long as the attitude is "feeling good" rather than "getting well" health care will always cost a lot.

In an event, Social Security was designed to be an income supplement, not an income (FDR even said so). You can do wonders by raising the Social Security Tax cap to $250,000, exempting and barring those who earn more than $250,000 and then means testing those in the system who earn less than $250,000 based on FDR's original concept, that Social Security is an income supplement, and not income.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticaltyger View Post
--END THE WARS
Your wars are part and parcel of Empire. If you want to keep your life-style and standard of living, then you must stomach the wars. If you are willing to give up your quality of life and standard of living, then by all means, do a way with the wars.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2011, 03:08 AM
 
28,668 posts, read 31,280,273 times
Reputation: 29684
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Your wars are part and parcel of Empire. If you want to keep your life-style and standard of living, then you must stomach the wars. If you are willing to give up your quality of life and standard of living, then by all means, do a way with the wars.
i sent you a DM on the health care issue.

But really, we are going to give up our standard of living anyway at this point. We simply can not afford the wars, the overpriced health care, the overpromised Social Security benefits, and the declining tax base because of flat or declining wages coupled with low economic growth because of an aging population.

We've really painted outselves into a corner and the only way out is going to be a very long and difficult road (as you alluded to in your post).
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2011, 09:20 AM
 
2,515 posts, read 1,819,085 times
Reputation: 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Then use a VAT or National Sales Tax. Progressive and Flat Taxes are manifestly unfair. A Flat Tax would work, but only where the Cost of Living and Purchasing Power Parity are uniform throughout. It might be possible for some States to use a Flat Tax in lieu of a Progressive Tax, but the federal government cannot.
First off, could you explain more of your thinking on this one? I don't see why it wouldn't work.


A flat tax can be made progressive by the expedient of having everyone get the same return at the end of the year. Every one pays 10% or what ever and everyone gets $2K or what ever back at the end of the year.


What I am thinking about is having a flat tax on the bottom 99% and a tax on the top 1% that is a function of the total debt in the US. If the total debt is 200% of GDP the top tax rate would be functionally 100% if the total debt is 0% of GDP then the top tax rate would be functionally 0%. With this kind of tax structure the top would have an incentive to not run debt bubbles.


What do you think about this?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2011, 09:22 AM
 
1,410 posts, read 1,927,579 times
Reputation: 1162
According to the media, the recession ended in summer of 2009.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2011, 09:24 AM
 
2,515 posts, read 1,819,085 times
Reputation: 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by temazepam View Post
According to the media, the recession ended in summer of 2009.
The recession may very well be over but the economic depression lives on.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:39 AM.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top