So is this what the Carter years were like? (wisdom, independence, solution)

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by gentlearts

I worked in a bank then, and I remember that retired folks who lived on the interest on their CDs were happy because the interest rates were in the low 20% range. Also the meltdown rate for silver was 10x face value, and there was a lot more silver in circulation then.
I was a young unpolitically involved person then, and I already had a mortgage, so I didn't really pay attention, but I'm sure there were many bad effects on the other side...mortgage and other loan rates must have been very high and counterproductive to the economy.

I remember that as well, my mother in law had all her money in CDs at the time, yes, it was great for them, but what about the rest of us. I could use some of that 20% right now, I would take some of my investments (regardless as to how little we have) and buy CDs. but I also know overall, it isn't the way to go.

Nita

[M3 Mitch]

Yeah, I do get the feeling it's 1979 all over again. The same feel that the country is in the dumps, the lack of vision at the highest levels of leadership, although in some ways it's now worse, with the Iraq and Afghan wars going on, and no clear "end state" for either, or practical plan to get there.

The one thing that's better right now is that interest rates are relatively low. I remember buying a CD for 16% interest. Damn, I should have bought more of those.

Another thing that's better is we are not in a direct face-off with an opponent like the USSR. Although the many small opponents we have now are considerably harder to manage.

But, to answer the OP's original question, to me the "zeitgeist" is about the same.

[roysoldboy]

Originally Posted by zz4guy

Unrelenting high unemployment and a feeling that America's best days are behind her? Those of you who old enough to remember, what was it like?

You have spoken it just as I remember that time and I was about 50 at the time.

[AnUnidentifiedMale]

Yep, just like the Carter years: Bitter conservatives whining, lying, and making up conspiracy theories about the President on an hourly basis. I find it's best to keep it all in perspective and ignore most of them.

[marmac]

Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale

Yep, just like the Carter years: Bitter conservatives whining, lying, and making up conspiracy theories about the President on an hourly basis. I find it's best to keep it all in perspective and ignore most of them.

--just like the Carter years--

You saying we're living under a one term president ?

[saganista]

Originally Posted by hawkeye2009

1. So interest rates at 21%- no disagreement there Sag.

Oh, that's not what I said. What I said was that the interest rates you cited resulted from actions that were taken by Volcker in the last waning days of the Carter administration when the locus of policymaking had already shifted toward the incoming Reagan administration. What you've done -- well wikipedia actually, not you -- is cite the WSJ Prime Rate from just before Christmas of 1980. The WSJ Prime Rate is not controlled by the government, it is not calculated on a regular basis, and it may reflect as few as 75% of contracts written by the nation's 30 largest lenders. It runs several points higher than stated national rates. It's true that I did not indicate a particular rate that I had in mind, so you may be warranted in citing any rate that you want, but as we are talking here about some people's gross mischaracterizations of the Carter administration, a more pertinent rate might have been the federal funds rate which is in fact targeted by the government and also never went above 19.0%. What you have done in citing the 20%+ levels of the WSJ Prime Rate is to identify a condition that did indeed apply over the final five weeks of the Carter admninstration. And then over the first eight months of the Reagan administration. I will suggest here that you are once again guilty of engaging in efforts to time-shift conditions that actually characterized the Reagan administration so as to make it appear as though they had characterized the Carter administration instead. You may need to explain as part of those efforts why the WSJ Prime Rate on August 21, 1980, was 11.00%.

Originally Posted by hawkeye2009

2. So you agree that Carter facilitated the return of the Shah. That was all that I was looking for.

Return of the Shah? That was in 1953. What Carter's inflationary policy did was set in motion the processes that led to the collapse of OPEC's ability to function as an international cartel. They had stung the west in 1973-74. They had hit again in 1979-80. How long would it have been before they struck a third time? So far, it has turned out to be never. Thanks, Jimmy.

Originally Posted by hawkeye2009

3. Some theory of yours? Of course not, Saggy. Read the link. It is liberal fairy tale lore that was created AFTER THE INVASION to rationalize the fact that Carter was caught completely suprised. Again, if we grant you your supposition that it was CARTER that was supplying the Mujahadeen, then CARTER IS THE FATHER OF ISLAMIC EXTREMISM. That is all that I was looking for there as well.

No, dismal one. You can go down to the Carter Library and see the actual, dated, then-secret memos from Brzezinski requesting and justifying and then from Carter approving and authorizing clandestine military support for the Mujahadeen. Six months before the Soviet invasion.

Meanwhile, the event that triggered all this radicalization and hatred for America was the abrupt US pullout from and abandonment of Afghanistan and the Mujahadeen once the Soviets had withdrawn. Could you provide us with the timeframe in which those events occurred?

Originally Posted by hawkeye2009

4. Inflation? Yes, read the article. Now what do you suppose happens with massive debt over time? Now answer this one factually, without spin, and perhaps we might all believe that you once took an economics class.

It's not at all clear why you cited this article to begin with. It hems and haws over every notion of future inflation except one -- the one where significant inflation will occur in the future if the government in the future decides to create signficant inflation. I don't think we needed the article to point that out. As for the debt, what happens with it over time is that it is serviced. Just as the massive debt from the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and WWI and WWII have been.

Originally Posted by hawkeye2009

5. Carter breaking up the OPEC cartel? Now that is another good whopper there Sag. Forgive me, but it is hard to type I am laughting so hard. Is not OPEC still functioning? I guess if Carter neutered it 30 years ago, then OPEC would have ceased to exist.

Again with the reading and logic difficulties. What Carter's inflationary policy did was undermine the value of OPEC's massive petro-dollar holdings while slashing the real income of smaller OPEC members to levels that no longer allowed them to adhere to cartel production quotas while still being able to pay their own bills. The resulting dissension within OPEC would evolve into an end of its ability to function as a cartel. The existence of OPEC as an organization is a very different thing from the existence of OPEC as a cartel.

Originally Posted by hawkeye2009

Are you referring to that other brilliant Carter suggestion to wear a sweater in the winter? I remember wood burning stoves returning to favor during the Carter administration as well. Perhaps under Barry we will have to start burning dung.

Yes, conservation is a cheap and easy way to reduce energy consumption. Never underestimate the value of a sweater. If you don't like cardigans, there are always turtle-necks. There was indeed a wood stove in the White House during Carter's time and solar panels on the roof as well. Unril Reagan ripped them out. Very few events in recent US history have been more damaging to this country's national energy posture than the election of Ronald Reagan. Morning in America. Real men don't eat quiche or drive fuel-efficient cars. Burn all you want -- we'll make more. Thanks, Ronnie.

[Frankie117]

Originally Posted by saganista

Return of the Shah? That was in 1953. What Carter's inflationary policy did was set in motion the processes that led to the collapse of OPEC's ability to function as an international cartel. They had stung the west in 1973-74. They had hit again in 1979-80. How long would it have been before they struck a third time? So far, it has turned out to be never. Thanks, Jimmy.

You ever so carefully left out that energy deregulation in the early 80s led to a huge surge in domestic oil production. The price of oil dropped dramatically, almost cut in half in the year 1986. I am sure you will come up with some witty remark, but Texans especially should remember how over production in their state put a dent in their economy in the late 80s. Furthermore, after 1980 several OPEC nations (especially Saudi Arabia) wanted insurance that the US would protect them if the Soviets pushed their war any further into the region, and also to protect against the escalating conflict between Iraq and Iran. In return, they tripled oil production which further glutted the market, starving the USSR of their primary source of revenue, and sparking civil unrest that eventually lead to the dissolution of the Communist superpower.

Originally Posted by saganista

No, dismal one. You can go down to the Carter Library and see the actual, dated, then-secret memos from Brzezinski requesting and justifying and then from Carter approving and authorizing clandestine military support for the Mujahadeen. Six months before the Soviet invasion.

I have to hand it to you, you are the first left winger I have seen with the stones to admit that Operation Cyclone began under president Carter.

Originally Posted by saganista

Yes, conservation is a cheap and easy way to reduce energy consumption. Never underestimate the value of a sweater. If you don't like cardigans, there are always turtle-necks. There was indeed a wood stove in the White House during Carter's time and soloar panels on the roof as well. Unril Reagain ripped them out. Very few events in recent US history have been more damaging to this country's national energy posture than the election of Ronald Reagan. Morning in America. Real men don't eat quiche or drive fuel-efficient cars. Burn all you want -- we'll make more. Thanks, Ronnie.

The average fuel economy of passenger vehicles increased 22% from 1980 to 1990. From 1990 to 2000 it increased by an astounding 8%. Whose energy policies did you say were a failure? 2000-2008 posted about a 9% change..

Secondly, the solar panels on the White House were taken down an amazing.. 5 years after Reagan took office (1986). Yeah, that was real high on his priority list. The next president to install solar panels? George W. Bush.

In all fairness though, after 1982 or so oil and coal prices were quite low, and there was little incentive to actively pursue costly alternative energy sources..

[saganista]

Originally Posted by LordBalfor

It seems to me that Saganista at least has a theory as why they has been no Oil Embargo since the Carter years...

A theory, yes, but not a grand unified theory. We don't want to get too carried away, here. Carter, after all, was gone by the beginning of 1981, and the three-year inflationary binge by the end of that year. What those pressures did was begin the process by, if not leveling, then at least seriously untilting the playing field, With the value of its cherished petro-dollar holdings evaporating before their eyes and the discord that arose from smalller OPEC members over the cost of adhering to quotas, both sides had a reason to get to the table. The then-current situation wasn't working well for anyone any more. Between 1972 and 1980, nominal oil prices had increased by a factor of about ten and real prices by a factor of about five. What emerged was an informal system where all that was cut about in half, and where in exchange for significant economic and military ties, Saudi Arabia would play the lead in assuring the relative stability of supply and prices that the western economies depended upon to perform efficiently. Carter had nothing to do with that. His policies had only created the conditions that made the process possible to begin with. The end result of that process was that OPEC as a cartel was dead, replaced by a system of general cooperation between producers and consumers.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by gentlearts

I worked in a bank then, and I remember that retired folks who lived on the interest on their CDs were happy because the interest rates were in the low 20% range. Also the meltdown rate for silver was 10x face value, and there was a lot more silver in circulation then.

Actually, the situation in 1979-81 for senior citizens in general was very challenging to say the least, in that so many of them were living primarily on fixed incomes, the value of which was eroding just as quickly as that of OPEC's petro-dollars. This was one of the principal downsides of allowing inflation to run. There were proposals within the Carter administration to address the fixed income problem, but Congress could not be interested in any of them, and none was ever enacted.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by roysoldboy

You have spoken it just as I remember that time and I was about 50 at the time.

Just goes to show you what the aging process can do, as your recollections, like <zz4guy>'s, are a mish-mash of bits and pieces that don't comprise an accurate picture of the time. Like a jigsaw puzzle dropped on the floor, then scooped up and dumped back on the table again. All sorts of stuff has gotten way out of place...