On 10/4/2012 12:24 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 10/3/2012 1:18 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

I can't believe you would expect a robust recovery after the worst
recession in our history. But that does tell me that you don't have a
very strong grasp about economics or about history.

You have no grasp of either.

You're wrong as usual.

I am right as always. You don't know economics at all, and next to
nothing about history.


Why *wouldn't* the recovery be strong? And where in the hell do you get
the idea that this is the "worst" recession in our history, and
according to what criteria? GDP declined 5.1%; it was down 12.7% in the
recession of 1945 and down 18.2% in Roosevelt's recession of 1937. The
most recent recession - which has been *OVER* for more than three years
- was one of the longest, but not by much: a year and six months, vs. a
year and four months for both the 1973-75 and early 1980s recessions.
National unemployment hit 10%, vs. 10.8% in the early 1980s (which was
necessary to choke off Jimmy Carter's runaway inflation.)

Take it up with the experts

No "expert" said anything to the contrary of what I said.


But forget about all that - why *wouldn't* the recovery be strong? The
strength of the recovery, in fact, is usually *greater* when the
recession is deeper.

Yeah, way back when recessions were just due to over production and
there was no global trade.

You're such an idiot. Recessions aren't *caused* by "over production",
you ****wit - overproduction is a *result*, or symptom.


You don't know what the **** you're talking about on any of this. You've
never studied business cycles. You don't know your flabby doughy ass
from your acne-scarred face.



I get the idea this is the worst recession since the great depression
from places like this. It's very easy to find.

It may very well be, but your belief that because it's bad, the recovery
will be slow, is simply wrong.