Are we heading for a world wide depression worse than 1929?
Posted 7 weeks 4 days ago byThe numbers are in, the month of June 2008 had the biggest decline of the US stock market, in a month, since 1930. Are we heading for a crash in the only sector of the US economy that was still quite healthy, even a few months ago? The Dow Jones has fallen 460 points in the last two sessions and reached its lowest point since September 2006.
A few factors are at play here to create a " perfect storm " for a bad situation to get even worse...a lot worse.
The troubles are not over for the financial sector with a possible downgrade of investment bank Morgan Stanley. Giant Merryl Lynch might have to write off 6 billion dollars of risky mortgage-backed debt.
Oil traded today at a new record ( $ 143.00 a barrel of crude) on the New-York Merchantile Exchange. The fast rise in commodities prices is slaming consumers with high cost for energy, food and all other goods. Inflation will be in the forecast and the Feds will likely have to raise interest rates. This, in return, will make money less available and pull the Stock Market even lower..
Hugh Johnson, chairman of Johnson Illington Advisors, said : " The problem is that there is not one single worry, but quite a few; high gas prices, tight credit market conditions and the contracting housing market. If you are looking for problems that face the US economy, they are everywhere."
The real question is this: In this grim context, how can we afford two wars at a price tag of 1 trillion dollar ( 650 billion for Iraq and 250 billion for Afghanistan)? Well.....the answer is; we can not afford them. They are wars on installment plan with money borrowed from China and Japan.
George W. Bush reckless policies are bankrupting the US economy. Yet , " The Decider " is still talking of an " economical slow down ", and not even a recession. Is he completely delusional or perhaps drinking again?
One thing Americans, before casting their votes in November, should think and worry about, in this doom & gloom economical forecast, is that Senator McCain claims not to be an expert in the field of...... the economy.
Note: I am a French filmmaker/photojournalist based in the US since 1983. To view my photo/editorial web site go to http://www.digitalrailroad.net/Mercier














Thoughts
Anon
Submitted on August 13th, 2008 by PabloBush is not the worst!
He will not be considered a great one but I think Bush will be remembered as average!
As far is worst president ever, that is to be seen.
As far as worst president to date, Carter has that one locked up and stamped going to his presidency of idiocies, blunders and out right stupidities of several policies that caused most of the problems we have today and is the main reason why America is fighting terrorism and why terrorism is a threat today.
george w. bush
Submitted on August 13th, 2008 by AnonymousGeorge Bush is the worst president to ever step in the white house and history will prove that. The damage that was caused in 8 years of his presidency is historical .It's like a domino effect one company after another Being bankrupt.War for his cause,in 8 years a bunch of thugs in the white house made money beyond our wildest imagination and we all paid for the suffering. We are doomed and now being that the presidency can actually be bought and stolen .Mcain will complete the total distruction of the greatest country to ever exist.Have fun in november and please don't bother to vote cause we allready know the outcome.People wake up , were letting these people get away with all of this . Awake America and lets take our country back!
short answer - No
Submitted on July 1st, 2008 by rom12921"George W. Bush reckless policies are bankrupting the US economy."
While I realize this statement is an opinion, how can you bankrupt an economy? There is no such thing.
"Yet , " The Decider " is still talking of an " economical slow down ", and not even a recession."
President Bush's statement is correct. Recession is at least 2 quarterly declines in GDP. Since we don't know the number until after it happens, you cannot say recession until it has already happened. "Economic slow-down" would be accurate in describing slower growth without proof of recession.Q1 GDP up 1%, we'll see for Q2 & Q3.
"Is he completely delusional or perhaps drinking again?" Why make these unsupported slanderous statements against the President of the United States? Disrespectful.
Ham
Submitted on June 29th, 2008 by PabloEcellent references!
Hamilton ... A+
Submitted on June 28th, 2008 by John 2000That is a great comment following after the briefer point of anonymous before you! Did you dig those all out? Wow. I had seen some of them before but never quite a definitive set. I also saw some like that when watching C-SPAN back during that period. All of the usual suspects and it even transcends the other charge of media war-drum beating.
At the time, I viewed it as a serious case of Bush-baiting to assist him in making a decision which they knew they would then come back at him with.
I know there are more quotes like those out there still as I have seen some others from Mr Head of Security Committee, Jay Rockefeller. When people like Mercy and Wish always cry that it is all R & no D, I come to totally disrespect their personal Research and Development.
I suggest you plug your excellent comment into a previous blog or two that might have had some breadth of comments from RDA that were more pertinent to the war specifically. Make it a separate blog also and send it to McCain etc.
A+
Bush’s Policy!
Submitted on June 28th, 2008 by HamiltonTHE TRUTH REVEALED
Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright > February 1, 1998"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
President Bill Clinton > February 4, 1998“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
Tom Daschle > February 11, 1998 "The (Clinton) administration has said, 'Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?' That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily."
President Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998"If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998 "We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st Century.... They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein."
President Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."
National Security Advisor Sandy Berger > February 18, 1998"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983"
Senator John Kerry (D-MA) > February 23, 1998 "Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East."
Bill Richardson (D-NM) > May 29, 1998 "The threat of nuclear proliferation is one of the big challenges that we have now, especially by states that have nuclear weapons, outlaw states like Iraq."
Letter to President Clinton Signed by Senators Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry -- all Democrats > October 9th, 1998"We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Al Gore > December 16, 1998 "[I]f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He has already demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons..."
Nancy Pelosi - House Minority Leader > December 16, 1998Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection processes."
President Bill Clinton > December 17, 1998 "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq.... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."
Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) > September 30, 1999 "One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or some other nation may acquire or develop nuclear weapons."
Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright > November 10, 1999"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Letter to President Bush signed by Senator Bob Graham (D-FL), Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT), Congressman Harold Ford (D-TN), Congressman Tom Lantos (D-CA) and others > December 6, 2001"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Madeline Albright > February 18, 2002 Iraq is a long way from (here), but what happens there matters a great deal here, for the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest national security threat we face -- and it is a threat against which we must and will stand firm."
Senator John Edwards (D-NC) > February 24, 2002"I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."Joe Biden > August 4, 2002"[H]e does have the capacity, as all terrorist-related operations do, of smuggling stuff into the United States and doing something terrible. That is true. But there's been no connection, hard connection made yet between he and al-Qaida or his willingness or effort to do that thus far. Doesn't mean he won't. This is a bad guy."
Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) > August 4, 2002 "This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world, and this is a guy who is in every way possible seeking weapons of mass destruction."
> August 4, 2002 "I think he has anthrax. I have not seen any evidence that he has smallpox, but you hear them say, Tim (Russert), is the last smallpox outbreak in the world was in Iraq; ergo, he may have a strain." > August 4, 2002 "We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability." > August 4, 2002 "First of all, we don't know exactly what he has. It's been five years since inspectors have been in there, number one. Number two, it is clear that he has residual of chemical weapons and biological weapons, number one."
Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) > August 4, 2002 "I'm inclined to support going in there and dealing with Saddam, but I think that case needs to be made on a separate basis: his possession of biological and chemical weapons, his desire to get nuclear weapons, his proven track record of attacking his neighbors and others."
Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) > August 25, 2002 "[M]y own personal view is, I think Saddam has chemical and biological weapons, and I expect that he is trying to develop a nuclear weapon. So at some point, we might have to act precipitously."
Jane Harman > August 27, 2002 "I certainly think (Hussein's) developing nuclear capability which, fortunately, the Israelis set back 20 years ago with their preemptive attack which, in hindsight, looks pretty darn good."
Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) > September 14, 2002 "I believe he has chemical and biological weapons. I think he's trying to develop nuclear weapons, and the fact that he might use those is a considerable threat to us."
Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) > September 19, 2002"We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Al Gore > September 23, 2002"We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."> September 23, 2002"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Dick Gephardt > September 23, 2002 "(I have seen) a large body of intelligence information over a long time that he is working on and has weapons of mass destruction. Before 1991, he was close to a nuclear device. Now, you'll get a debate about whether it's one year away or five years away."
Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) > September 27, 2002"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." > September 27, 2002"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed."
Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) > October 3, 2002"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of '98. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons."
Senator John Kerry (D-MA) > October 9, 2002"I will be voting to give the president of the US the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Russell Feingold > October 9, 2002 "With regard to Iraq, I agree Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the president argues."
Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) > October 10, 2002"There was unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember that we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Senatorc Chuck Schumer (D-NY) > October 10, 2002 "It is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and future potential support for terrorist acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the united states."
Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) > October 10, 2002"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability, his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Senator John Edwards (D-NC) > October 10, 2002"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi > October 10, 2002 "Yes, he has chemical weapons. Yes, he has biological weapons. He is trying to get nuclear weapons."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA) > October 10, 2002"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Senator John Edwards (D-NC) > January 7, 2003 "Serving on the intelligence committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. It's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."
Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) > January 22, 2003 "I voted for the Iraqi resolution. I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States."
Senator John Kerry (D-MA) > January 23, 2003“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real” > January 31, 2003 "If you don't believe Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."
B. Hamilton Langrehr:
The Hamilton Post: www.thehamiltonpost.blogspot.com
responsibility on both sides of the aisle
Submitted on June 28th, 2008 by AnonymousDon't forget to include the trillions of dollars in crazy spending legislated by a Democrat-controlled Congress.
It's a myth that the economic troubles are solely due to the war.
Anyway, did you catch the latest?
The Taliban are engaging in public executions...cutting off the heads of spies...Don't be so hasteful in going soft on the why we're over there fighting. Islamofascism is real and unless we fight we'll have more problems than just a lagging economy.
Back to my main point....the entitlement spending, the earmarks, the pork, etc. etc. You need only look LEFT to see where the spending originates. As it is, Obama has already proposed 800 Billion in spending and he's going to have to go after everyone's paycheck to foot that bill.
You want to see what the U.S. will look like with the Dems in control? See California... Outrageous, irresponsible spending and nothing to show for it but a mountain of debt.
It's an irresponsible mess out here.
Humm
Submitted on June 28th, 2008 by Skye RiversOil has hit as of this morning $1.40, so Pablo could very well be right. As far as Mercy and another great depression, I would bet on it; maybe not my first born, but i would be my first morning coffee ;)...... we are in very challenging times with much more devastation ahead. Forget the damn oncoming great depression #2, hold your energy for the Mothership of all depressions, the Mayan's calendar 12/12/12.
Not even close!
Submitted on June 27th, 2008 by PabloOil will hit $150 before July 31! Its just a matter of when! I expect that after the election you will see a massive climb in oil again which will either reach $200 or will get close!
The problem with the democrats and Obama on these issues is that they keep saying if we drill now and do this or that it will not help today and will not effect anything for 5 to 10 years.
The problem with that statement is that all that the politicians have said for the last 40 years! Soon hopefully rather than later we are going to have to increase in drilling!
Every country on the planet is drilling off the US Coast except us!!! The environmentalist are so stupid that all they have to do is get in a boat and go out to sea 15 miles and see Chinese Drilling for Oil off of Florida for %^&&$#@!!!!
Its time that our representatives stop telling us that they are not going to do something because it will take to long for the people to reap any benefits!
Truth is that there is three things that would help America within 5 years!
1. Demand that every new car and truck must run on hydrogen or be a hydrid with electric! There are prodction cars that are hydrogen/ electric, hydrogen/ gas and Hydrogen only that are aready production cars and have passed the prototype stage!
Honda has the FCX and Civic, BMW H2H do out in 2010, Mercadez has the Hfire do in 2012 and GM has several. The Saturn Aura, Chev Equinox and Malibu with 2 other unnamed prototypes that have been on the virtual testing world for as long as 18 years! Name a manufacturer, and you have 2 or more cars that are either production vehicles or a prototype do out in the next 4 years! (personally, I like the BMW H2H because its fast and an awesome car! 189 MPH running on pure Hydrogen! The other is the Honda FCX though it could be better!
2. Drill for all the oil that is off American Coast line. deny that oil that the Saudi Arabians, the Chinese and the Russians along with Europeans or even some African countries are drilling off the American Coast! If America will not drill it then the Saudi Arabians will drill off of Florida and charge America way more than if we did it ourselves! The rigs could be in place and in full production within 3 years for most places. 30 rigs could be in place within 1 to 2 years producing 4 billion barrels of oil a day!!!
3. Fund alternative fuels! Like Coal to oil, slate to oil along with wind, solar and geothermo projects.
America has the largest geothermal deposites in the world. Yet America has only 2 experiemental production facilities! Hot springs in Wyoming for example around Thermopolis can provide enough steam energy to equal 2 nuclear plants and be 100% safer to the environment!
The farm bill
Submitted on June 27th, 2008 by MercyphotographyDear Charles,
I would agree with you on the farm bill and, to be specific, the subsidies for growing corn for ethanol.
However, as far as McCain he used to be against the subsidies but now he seems to have flip-flopped ( like on countless issues) on the problem.
For the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Americans should have been told the truth and that it would require a sacrifice (meaning raising taxes)instead of the wild fairy tales of the Neocons. Remember when Paul Wolfovitz was claiming that the " Iraqi oil would pay for the war".
Another thing
Submitted on June 27th, 2008 by charlesbaronvoters should worry about is Obama raising taxes, especially top marginal rates to 53%. Talk about loosing capital flows into this country.
Hoover did the same thing in 29/30, with devastating effects, followed by the price controls of Roosevelt which Democrats still love today. Throw a $300 billion dollar farm bill loaded with subsidies on top of the ethanol disaster and you realize that congress is a bigger threat to the middle class than oil companies. Barack's comment on the farm bill before he voted for it was "...the perfect should not be the enemy of the good." Wow, what leadership. McCain voted against the farm bill and promptly lost the Iowa primary. I guess he would rather loose an election than loose the value of his currency.
Iraq sucks. But wars end,unlike government programs which never do. Outfitting an expeditionary force has its economic benefits domestically and stimulates the economy more than any Democratic initiative that enable people in this country who don't even speak English to buy more moon pies and lottery tickets.
Bring it on ?
Submitted on June 27th, 2008 by MercyphotographyWait John...this is a line of " The Decider ", isn't it?
A bit trigger happy and simplistic for you, don't you think?
Not your usual style.....
Bring it on
Submitted on June 27th, 2008 by John 2000NOW. Let's settle this in the street.