Go back and read the newspapers from previous recessions (loans, real estate, credit card)

[Internet nut]

I had some time to kill and went back and read articles in newspapers and magazines from the recessions in the early 1980s and 1990s. Back then they had the same scary "the sky is falling" articles about how terrible things were and the economy was going through a structural change and this was the end of prosperity, etc. Why is this different?

[bale002]

The late 1970s-early 1980s was a true recession after years of excesses and tangible structural changes came out of it.

The early 1990s is nothing worth remembering.

We should have had a deep recession in the early 2000s to reverse the excesses of the 1990s boom, and restructure and retrain, but, in a few words, the credit bubble prevented it.

I suppose there was a lot of corruption and moral malaise in the US in the 1960s and 1970s, at least that is my lasting impression of that era, though it is hard to gauge to what extent it may be worse now.

What is certain is that the US economy is more dependent on international linkages than in the late 1970s/early 1980s. Have foreign influences made the US ruling class more corrupt than it otherwise would have been?

What is certain is that the US population has aged since then, what is uncertain is whether the country as a society has enough energies to shake off the current corruption, moral malaise, and age to renew itself.

In the long run, we are all dead men.

[oleo]

Because now we have a bunch of liberals running the country.

[neil0311]

Originally Posted by bale002

The late 1970s-early 1980s was a true recession after years of excesses and tangible structural changes came out of it.

The recession in the early 70s was result of reductions in military spending after the Vietnam pullout combined with a harsh energy price shock brought on by the oil embargo. Tinkering by Nixon with price controls didn't help.

This recession has some of the same characteristics as far as the energy price shock that slowed things down.

[wanneroo]

The media always races from one extreme to another. The best thing is to put all that out of your head and make the best life you can for yourself.

[Woof]

Originally Posted by Internet nut

I had some time to kill and went back and read articles in newspapers and magazines from the recessions in the early 1980s and 1990s. Back then they had the same scary "the sky is falling" articles about how terrible things were and the economy was going through a structural change and this was the end of prosperity, etc. Why is this different?

I experienced the late 70s and early 80s, and that was a bad time. But I don't remember houses foreclosing at the rate they do now (with worse to come), people had more savings then, and credit problems weren't shutting down even international trade.

That recession didn't result in the loss or near-loss of many of the oldest and largest corporations (basically the DOW type corporations). It was a more normal type of recession, where the young'uns that didn't have deep pockets were weeded out. The govt wasn't freaking out trying frantically to prevent the big players from sliding into liquidation.

There are also problems you don't know about concerning corruption of our govt, SEC, and financial laws by organised crime, that were probably not nearly as severe back then.

We may pull out of this if energy prices remain low, but even so we won't recover for several years (as happened back then). The only problem is that by the time we MIGHT recover, assuming no other disasters blindside us, we will be starting to get hit hard by declining oil production in a world with accelerating demand for the stuff.

[Internet nut]

If I remember correctly Ronald Reagan would not admit that we were in a recession, unlike today when our President acts like Chicken Little.

[Philip T]

Originally Posted by oleo

Because now we have a bunch of liberals running the country.

Yes indeed. All America has now-a-days are Liberals and Retards.

Which group are you in, again?

Back towards a serious answer towards the OP -- VERY Good Research Thinking and Efforts. Outstanding thinking. Look and Learn from the Past.

I would submit to really look and learn the application, one could look at the common path out from all the them (the path out was always the same) -- Debt.

No Joke.

The path out of every one was Debt, Debt and more Debt. Ronnie Raygun's real path was to massively place in debt the US, itself. Look back at the Federal Budgets. At the same time, the Corporations and Pensions were asset striped and replaced with Debt.

By the time that stupidity peter-ed out into the Saving and Loans crisis, and the path out from it was again -- debt. All rolled into the Federal Debt -- this time without even hitting the budget.

Under the Clinton Era and the Contract on America, it was more debt -- this time for the masses. Usury laws were pulled off the banks and credit cards and the people became debt serfs.

When that maxed and faltered and Bush's advice was to Go Shopping (more CC debt), the Housing and Real Estate was targeted for Debt. In some places you could 125% loans on a house.

Now that has all crashed. And we are back where we started at the beginning of "Reaganomics." So that leaves US with the path of more debt, or that damn Liberal Carter's observations and advice -- There are limits. You have to act like responsible grown-ups. You have to work to have wealth. All those damn Liberal concepts.

I bet the Retards will try to choose Debt again. Real difference is this time the debt well has run dry.