When I talked to my friend that has a company that TiN coats cutting tools
today, he said that after a poor December and a so-so January, his February
is booming! I hope it's a good sign to see industrial cutting tools in high
demand.

On Feb 13, 8:32*pm, "Buerste" wrote:
When I talked to my friend that has a company that TiN coats cutting tools
today, he said that after a poor December and a so-so January, his February
is booming! *I hope it's a good sign to see industrial cutting tools in high
demand.

Yes, that is a good sign.

I own a small electronic assembly service in Redmond, Oregon. We are
seeing a significant increase in business. However, it is coming from
companies that have either laid off most of their production workers
and now need to have some assembly work done, or another that has had
significant price increases from their assembly house and have decided
to have the work done locally. Good for us, but bad for the other
companies. Economically it is a net zero.

In these times, a company is looking for stability and we offer that.
Now, if we can just make it financially for one or two more weeks, we
will be ok. Assuming we can get some companies to pay their bills!

We will take any work we can get. And the metal working part is I get
to mill more aluminum tooling plates to hold the panels of printed
circuit boards in the solder paste stencil machine.

Paul

On Feb 14, 4:32 am, "Buerste" wrote:
When I talked to my friend that has a company that TiN coats cutting tools
today, he said that after a poor December and a so-so January, his February
is booming! I hope it's a good sign to see industrial cutting tools in high
demand.



The economy is not is bad as the Democrats have been painting it.
Today in the WSJ is an article comparing todays economy to 1981 and
1930.

Dan

By BRADLEY R. SCHILLER

President Barack Obama has turned fearmongering into an art form. He
has repeatedly raised the specter of another Great Depression. First,
he did so to win votes in the November election. He has done so again
recently to sway congressional votes for his stimulus package.
[Commentary] AP

In his remarks, every gloomy statistic on the economy becomes a
harbinger of doom. As he tells it, today's economy is the worst since
the Great Depression. Without his Recovery and Reinvestment Act, he
says, the economy will fall back into that abyss and may never
recover.

This fearmongering may be good politics, but it is bad history and bad
economics. It is bad history because our current economic woes don't
come close to those of the 1930s. At worst, a comparison to the
1981-82 recession might be appropriate. Consider the job losses that
Mr. Obama always cites. In the last year, the U.S. economy shed 3.4
million jobs. That's a grim statistic for sure, but represents just
2.2% of the labor force. From November 1981 to October 1982, 2.4
million jobs were lost -- fewer in number than today, but the labor
force was smaller. So 1981-82 job losses totaled 2.2% of the labor
force, the same as now.

Job losses in the Great Depression were of an entirely different
magnitude. In 1930, the economy shed 4.8% of the labor force. In 1931,
6.5%. And then in 1932, another 7.1%. Jobs were being lost at double
or triple the rate of 2008-09 or 1981-82.
The Opinion Journal Widget

Download Opinion Journal's widget and link to the most important
editorials and op-eds of the day from your blog or Web page.

This was reflected in unemployment rates. The latest survey pegs U.S.
unemployment at 7.6%. That's more than three percentage points below
the 1982 peak (10.8%) and not even a third of the peak in 1932
(25.2%). You simply can't equate 7.6% unemployment with the Great
Depression.

Other economic statistics also dispel any analogy between today's
economic woes and the Great Depression. Real gross domestic product
(GDP) rose in 2008, despite a bad fourth quarter. The Congressional
Budget Office projects a GDP decline of 2% in 2009. That's comparable
to 1982, when GDP contracted by 1.9%. It is nothing like 1930, when
GDP fell by 9%, or 1931, when GDP contracted by another 8%, or 1932,
when it fell yet another 13%.

Auto production last year declined by roughly 25%. That looks good
compared to 1932, when production shriveled by 90%. The failure of a
couple of dozen banks in 2008 just doesn't compare to over 10,000 bank
failures in 1933, or even the 3,000-plus bank (Savings & Loan)
failures in 1987-88. Stockholders can take some solace from the fact
that the recent stock market debacle doesn't come close to the 90%
devaluation of the early 1930s.

Mr. Obama's analogies to the Great Depression are not only
historically inaccurate, they're also dangerous. Repeated warnings
from the White House about a coming economic apocalypse aren't likely
to raise consumer and investor expectations for the future. In fact,
they have contributed to the continuing decline in consumer confidence
that is restraining a spending pickup. Beyond that, fearmongering can
trigger a political stampede to embrace a "recovery" package that
delivers a lot less than it promises. A more cool-headed assessment of
the economy's woes might produce better policies.

Mr. Schiller, an economics professor at the University of Nevada,
Reno, is the author of "The Economy Today" (McGraw-Hill, 2007).

On 2009-02-14, wrote:
On Feb 14, 4:32 am, "Buerste" wrote:
When I talked to my friend that has a company that TiN coats cutting tools
today, he said that after a poor December and a so-so January, his February
is booming! I hope it's a good sign to see industrial cutting tools in high
demand.



The economy is not is bad as the Democrats have been painting it.
Today in the WSJ is an article comparing todays economy to 1981 and
1930.




By BRADLEY R. SCHILLER

President Barack Obama has turned fearmongering into an art form. He
has repeatedly raised the specter of another Great Depression. First,
he did so to win votes in the November election. He has done so again
recently to sway congressional votes for his stimulus package.
[Commentary] AP

In his remarks, every gloomy statistic on the economy becomes a
harbinger of doom. As he tells it, today's economy is the worst since
the Great Depression. Without his Recovery and Reinvestment Act, he
says, the economy will fall back into that abyss and may never
recover.

This fearmongering may be good politics, but it is bad history and bad
economics. It is bad history because our current economic woes don't
come close to those of the 1930s. At worst, a comparison to the
1981-82 recession might be appropriate. Consider the job losses that
Mr. Obama always cites. In the last year, the U.S. economy shed 3.4
million jobs. That's a grim statistic for sure, but represents just
2.2% of the labor force. From November 1981 to October 1982, 2.4
million jobs were lost -- fewer in number than today, but the labor
force was smaller. So 1981-82 job losses totaled 2.2% of the labor
force, the same as now.

Job losses in the Great Depression were of an entirely different
magnitude. In 1930, the economy shed 4.8% of the labor force. In 1931,
6.5%. And then in 1932, another 7.1%. Jobs were being lost at double
or triple the rate of 2008-09 or 1981-82.

Keep in mind that on the timeline the the recession, we are not yet at
the end of the "year after the crash". The crash of 2008 is obviously
followed by year 2009, just as the crash of 1929 was followed by year
1930. So, comparing where we are now, with 1930, simply is a "apples
to oranges" comparison. When 2009 ends, it could be properly compared
to 1930.

So far, the speed of the contraction, given that we are at a much
earlier stage in it than we would be at the end of 1930, is very rapid
by any standards.

The Great Depression of 1930 and The great Recession of 2009, are both
crises of debt and deleveraging. Events of 1981-1982 were of rather
different nature, dealing with taming inflation.



Download Opinion Journal's widget and link to the most important
editorials and op-eds of the day from your blog or Web page.

This was reflected in unemployment rates. The latest survey pegs U.S.
unemployment at 7.6%. That's more than three percentage points below
the 1982 peak (10.8%) and not even a third of the peak in 1932
(25.2%). You simply can't equate 7.6% unemployment with the Great
Depression.

Other economic statistics also dispel any analogy between today's
economic woes and the Great Depression. Real gross domestic product
(GDP) rose in 2008, despite a bad fourth quarter. The Congressional
Budget Office projects a GDP decline of 2% in 2009. That's comparable
to 1982, when GDP contracted by 1.9%. It is nothing like 1930, when
GDP fell by 9%, or 1931, when GDP contracted by another 8%, or 1932,
when it fell yet another 13%.

Here you are comparing predicions of CBO, with actual course of
events.

Without the bailout, banks such as Citibank would fail, money market
accounts drawn down, with a quick domino effect to follow, and drop of
9% would not be out of realm of possibilities.

Auto production last year declined by roughly 25%. That looks good
compared to 1932, when production shriveled by 90%. The failure of a

Try to compare it to January 1930.

couple of dozen banks in 2008 just doesn't compare to over 10,000 bank
failures in 1933, or even the 3,000-plus bank (Savings & Loan)
failures in 1987-88. Stockholders can take some solace from the fact
that the recent stock market debacle doesn't come close to the 90%
devaluation of the early 1930s.

It follows, reasonably well, the timeline up to early 1930. (which, to
me, has no predictive meaning).

Mr. Obama's analogies to the Great Depression are not only
historically inaccurate, they're also dangerous. Repeated warnings
from the White House about a coming economic apocalypse aren't likely
to raise consumer and investor expectations for the future. In fact,
they have contributed to the continuing decline in consumer confidence
that is restraining a spending pickup. Beyond that, fearmongering can
trigger a political stampede to embrace a "recovery" package that
delivers a lot less than it promises. A more cool-headed assessment of
the economy's woes might produce better policies.

Mr. Schiller, an economics professor at the University of Nevada,
Reno, is the author of "The Economy Today" (McGraw-Hill, 2007).


This article is intellectually dishonest, as he intentionaly compares
early stages of this recession with late stages of 1930's depression.

i

--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 23:32:51 -0500, Buerste wrote:

When I talked to my friend that has a company that TiN coats cutting
tools today, he said that after a poor December and a so-so January, his
February is booming! I hope it's a good sign to see industrial cutting
tools in high demand.

In every recession I've ever lived through (and even from what little I
know of The Big One in the '30s), life has always gone on.

At some point people get tired of not buying stuff, and companies realize
that sitting still in a dark room isn't going to save them.

I suspect that we'll see some realignment in the economy if the Dems
don't get too enthusiastic (there was actually a Rick Lowry piece in the
paper today that I agreed with, on just this topic), but I very much
doubt that we're all going to sit shivering and starving on the streets
outside of our former homes while the sun slowly goes out.

--
http://www.wescottdesign.com

"Ignoramus9596" wrote in message
...
On 2009-02-14, wrote:
On Feb 14, 4:32 am, "Buerste" wrote:
When I talked to my friend that has a company that TiN coats cutting
tools
today, he said that after a poor December and a so-so January, his
February
is booming! I hope it's a good sign to see industrial cutting tools in
high
demand.


Manufacturers that were doing their own coating have shut down those
departments and are buying the service.
There are also fewer people left doing this work. TiN coating has been
obsolete for some years now.

Mr. Schiller, an economics professor at the University of Nevada,
Reno, is the author of "The Economy Today" (McGraw-Hill, 2007).


This article is intellectually dishonest, as he intentionaly compares
early stages of this recession with late stages of 1930's depression.

It also ignores the eight trillion dollars pumped into the economy during
the last fifteen months of the Bush administration.
Badly done or not, the world would have reverted to stone axes and caves had
the financial services and insurance industries been allowed to collapse on
their own.

JC

"Tim Wescott" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 23:32:51 -0500, Buerste wrote:

When I talked to my friend that has a company that TiN coats cutting
tools today, he said that after a poor December and a so-so January, his
February is booming! I hope it's a good sign to see industrial cutting
tools in high demand.

In every recession I've ever lived through (and even from what little I
know of The Big One in the '30s), life has always gone on.

At some point people get tired of not buying stuff, and companies realize
that sitting still in a dark room isn't going to save them.

I suspect that we'll see some realignment in the economy if the Dems
don't get too enthusiastic (there was actually a Rick Lowry piece in the
paper today that I agreed with, on just this topic), but I very much
doubt that we're all going to sit shivering and starving on the streets
outside of our former homes while the sun slowly goes out.

--
http://www.wescottdesign.com

And, as there was during the Big One, there will be an endless stream of
tenured and degreed naysayers who keep saying that the best thing to do is
nothing, that it will all work out in the end.

Fortunately for us all, no one in a major decision-making capacity listened
to them. Except that FDR did take them seriously for a short time around
1935, which promptly drove us into an even deeper wave of depression.

If you read some analysis by any economist over 50 who is associated with
the Univ. of Chicago, or if their biography says anything about the Austrian
School or the American Enterprise Institute, Lew Rockwell or the Mises
Institute, Cato, or George Mason or Loyola Universities, turn a deaf ear,
because they're the voodoo economists who got us here in the first place.

The only thing useful they're saying now is that we have to move fast to get
rid of the zombie banks, one way or another. Otherwise, they'd all be happy
to see things take 20 years to "work out in the end," for the sole sake of
proving the validity of their kooky ideologies. And if we were all living in
mud huts when it was over, they'd be perfectly happy, because, they'd say,
that's what the market says we deserve.

--
Ed Huntress

"Tim Wescott" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 23:32:51 -0500, Buerste wrote:

When I talked to my friend that has a company that TiN coats cutting
tools today, he said that after a poor December and a so-so January, his
February is booming! I hope it's a good sign to see industrial cutting
tools in high demand.

In every recession I've ever lived through (and even from what little I
know of The Big One in the '30s), life has always gone on.

At some point people get tired of not buying stuff, and companies realize
that sitting still in a dark room isn't going to save them.

I suspect that we'll see some realignment in the economy if the Dems
don't get too enthusiastic (there was actually a Rick Lowry piece in the
paper today that I agreed with, on just this topic), but I very much
doubt that we're all going to sit shivering and starving on the streets
outside of our former homes while the sun slowly goes out.

--
http://www.wescottdesign.com

In November and December, I didn't have the huge orders from my usual
customers. I know their buying patterns and MRP systems better than they do
and I knew they were chewing through their safety stock even though their
buyers were on notice to cut back on purchases. All my stuff to them goes
into the mid-range restaurants. I knew that fast-food was actually on an
upswing, high-end eateries were only taking a single digit hit, and my
market mid-range restaurants were about the same. So, I decides to keep
producing at normal production rates and pack the rafters with product.
Well, imagine my smile when my customers call in a panic because their
shelves are bare! I've been able to ship from stock and be a hero! I hope
they don't keep expecting the zero lead time, I can't afford this inventory
level forever. I'll bet they will want to rebuild their safety stock all at
once and put me behind the eight-ball having to run overtime and weekends.
Idiots!

On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 12:34:16 -0600, Ignoramus9596
wrote:


Keep in mind that on the timeline the the recession, we are not yet at
the end of the "year after the crash". The crash of 2008 is obviously
followed by year 2009, just as the crash of 1929 was followed by year
1930. So, comparing where we are now, with 1930, simply is a "apples
to oranges" comparison. When 2009 ends, it could be properly compared
to 1930.

So far, the speed of the contraction, given that we are at a much
earlier stage in it than we would be at the end of 1930, is very rapid
by any standards.

The Great Depression of 1930 and The great Recession of 2009, are both
crises of debt and deleveraging. Events of 1981-1982 were of rather
different nature, dealing with taming inflation.

1932 was probably the worst year of the Great Depression....so we havent
hit bottom yet by any means

Gunner

"Upon Roosevelt's death in 1945, H. L. Mencken predicted in his diary
that Roosevelt would be remembered as a great president, "maybe even
alongside Washington and Lincoln," opining that Roosevelt "had every
quality that morons esteem in their heroes.""

On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 14:01:40 -0500, "Buerste" wrote:


"Tim Wescott" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 23:32:51 -0500, Buerste wrote:

When I talked to my friend that has a company that TiN coats cutting
tools today, he said that after a poor December and a so-so January, his
February is booming! I hope it's a good sign to see industrial cutting
tools in high demand.

In every recession I've ever lived through (and even from what little I
know of The Big One in the '30s), life has always gone on.

At some point people get tired of not buying stuff, and companies realize
that sitting still in a dark room isn't going to save them.

I suspect that we'll see some realignment in the economy if the Dems
don't get too enthusiastic (there was actually a Rick Lowry piece in the
paper today that I agreed with, on just this topic), but I very much
doubt that we're all going to sit shivering and starving on the streets
outside of our former homes while the sun slowly goes out.

--
http://www.wescottdesign.com

In November and December, I didn't have the huge orders from my usual
customers. I know their buying patterns and MRP systems better than they do
and I knew they were chewing through their safety stock even though their
buyers were on notice to cut back on purchases. All my stuff to them goes
into the mid-range restaurants. I knew that fast-food was actually on an
upswing, high-end eateries were only taking a single digit hit, and my
market mid-range restaurants were about the same. So, I decides to keep
producing at normal production rates and pack the rafters with product.
Well, imagine my smile when my customers call in a panic because their
shelves are bare! I've been able to ship from stock and be a hero! I hope
they don't keep expecting the zero lead time, I can't afford this inventory
level forever. I'll bet they will want to rebuild their safety stock all at
once and put me behind the eight-ball having to run overtime and weekends.
Idiots!

Might want to ease off on your production just a tad to reflect that
single-digit hit without getting stuck with too much inventory - and
still be in business and have some on hand to ship when they do have
money. Because Ohio is probably like everywhere else, the State will
tax you on inventory on hand at the end of the FY, and you don't want
to get nailed. The customers running supply-house operations do the
same thing, let their stock dwindle to the bare minimum right before
the annual inventory count - and if they run Calendar Year, that
explains it.

California has finally run out of creative ways to play "Hide the
Pea" with the budget and they are talking about some real healthy tax
and fee and other "revenue" (wink wink) increases. Which if they get
through the courts unscathed (there's a *reason* we put Proposition 13
through!) are only going to make it worse.

(Ahnold The Governator has turned out to be a bigger Girly-Man than
Gray Davis ever dreamed of. Maria must have hocked his balls. Anyone
want to organize a Sacramento Tea Party?)

-- Bruce --

I skipped the meeting, but the Memos showed that Gunner Asch
wrote on Sat, 14 Feb 2009 13:08:47 -0800
in rec.crafts.metalworking :
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 12:34:16 -0600, Ignoramus9596
wrote:


Keep in mind that on the timeline the the recession, we are not yet at
the end of the "year after the crash". The crash of 2008 is obviously
followed by year 2009, just as the crash of 1929 was followed by year
1930. So, comparing where we are now, with 1930, simply is a "apples
to oranges" comparison. When 2009 ends, it could be properly compared
to 1930.

So far, the speed of the contraction, given that we are at a much
earlier stage in it than we would be at the end of 1930, is very rapid
by any standards.

The Great Depression of 1930 and The great Recession of 2009, are both
crises of debt and deleveraging. Events of 1981-1982 were of rather
different nature, dealing with taming inflation.

1932 was probably the worst year of the Great Depression....so we havent
hit bottom yet by any means

But by 1934 it was obvious, every time you saw the light at the
end of the tunnel, you could be sure the Government would come along
and make more tunnel.

Sec Treas Morgantue testified in 1939 that they'd spent all the
money, and no reduction in unemployment had resulted. But the
National Debt _was_ higher.
--
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!

On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 13:08:47 -0800, Gunner Asch
wrote:
snip
1932 was probably the worst year of the Great Depression....so we havent
hit bottom yet by any means
snip
Unfortunately, you are most likely correct.

The public can't even get a consistent, even if not completely
honest, answer of how bad just the toxic home mortgage backed
SSCDOs are, with the commercial mortgage backed SSCDOs set to
roll a second tsunami, quite likely *larger* than the
sub-prime/alt-A one across the financial flood plain in a few
months, even as the banksters and broksters [combination of
banker/broker and gangster] remain in denial and party on [on our
credit card].

Mean while the Detroit three soap opera continues. Class -- can
anyone define "triage?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triage

As Galbraith points out in his popular history "The Great Crash
of 1929" there were several waves that swept through the stock
market on the way down, first the day trippers, then the lone
wolf smart guys, then the securities firms, and then the
underlying businesses/banks, as one levee or firewall was
breached after another, as reality swept through the market, and
the pyramid collapsed.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0395859999/...l_34ih5gk1yc_e
You most likely can get this from your local library. Very
good/easy read, although it makes your hair stand up as you see
the parallels between the 1929 crash and the 1960 debacle, during
which Galbraith was writing] and compare these with today's new
items. Example: compare the 1929 "investment trusts" with the
2008 "hedge funds"


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

"John R. Carroll" wrote:

It also ignores the eight trillion dollars pumped into the economy during
the last fifteen months of the Bush administration.
Badly done or not, the world would have reverted to stone axes and caves had
the financial services and insurance industries been allowed to collapse on
their own.

I'm not a big fan of regulation but finance and insurance is a place that a bit of
goverment looking out the rest of us might not be too bad.

It is hard to bull**** your way making real physical products but numbers relying on other
numbers is a prime place for the bs artist to do their dirty work.

Wes

On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 13:41:42 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:
snip
Sec Treas Morgantue testified in 1939 that they'd spent all the
money, and no reduction in unemployment had resulted. But the
National Debt _was_ higher.
snip
--------
On the other hand US unemployment never reached the extreme
levels it did in other countries, large numbers of people did not
starve to death [although there was not a national obesity
problem either...] and there was not a "popular revolution,"
although it got close several times. Additionally, many useful
projects, many still in use in my area, were constructed by the
WPA/PWA/CCC, so the money was not entirely wasted.

Everything considered, the US dodged a bullet in 1929-39.

Where the stupidity and arrogance comes in 2008/09 is not that we
are again spending money on what are quite likely a number of
futile or mis guided attempts to stave off or mitigate an
economic disaster, but that we have another economic disaster of
such magnitude and extent, that we as a nation feel compelled to
again spend such sums, especially as all the experience and
preventative measures enacted, and all the lessons learned as the
result of the last economic h-bomb barrage [1990s dot cons], have
been largely forgotten and/or systematically
repealed/evaded/ignored.

The fact that such expenditures are felt necessary is one thing,
but another thing is that items should have been included in the
various stimulus bills such supplemental appropriations for the
BLS/BEA/GAO etc. for increased staffing and monitoring of not
only how these funds are spent, but the actual results as these
wend their way through the economy [or not if they wind up in a
safe somewhere]. As it stands now, we are spreading money around
like fertilizer, hoping that something grows. While something
may indeed grow as the result of the random application of
fertilizer, it may well be crabgrass or ragweed... [achoo, achoo]


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

"Buerste" wrote:

In November and December, I didn't have the huge orders from my usual
customers. I know their buying patterns and MRP systems better than they do
and I knew they were chewing through their safety stock even though their
buyers were on notice to cut back on purchases.

There is a lot of that going on. No one wants to have too much inventory on hand since
capital is life. It gives you options.

My employer is seeing sales that are not declining past where we thought the market was
going to be. The cuts made was to get to a point where managing up would be the order of
the day vs managing down.

It totally sucks if you get kicked to the curb but if you are one of those that get to
ride it out, life goes on. If the company outlasts the competition life gets better.

Once upon a time, settlers moved into the interior of the US. The indians killed some of
them for that. As bad as it gets now, we are so better off than in times before.

If those reading this have lost their job, well I've been there. It sucks, no pretty face
to put on it.

Wes

F. George McDuffee wrote:


The fact that such expenditures are felt necessary is one thing,
but another thing is that items should have been included in the
various stimulus bills such supplemental appropriations for the
BLS/BEA/GAO etc. for increased staffing and monitoring of not
only how these funds are spent, but the actual results as these
wend their way through the economy [or not if they wind up in a
safe somewhere].

Sounds like flooding money into Iraq all over again. I hope the left is just as critical
about it.

Wes

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 13:41:42 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:
snip
Sec Treas Morgantue testified in 1939 that they'd spent all the
money, and no reduction in unemployment had resulted. But the
National Debt _was_ higher.
snip
--------
On the other hand US unemployment never reached the extreme
levels it did in other countries, large numbers of people did not
starve to death [although there was not a national obesity
problem either...] and there was not a "popular revolution,"
although it got close several times. Additionally, many useful
projects, many still in use in my area, were constructed by the
WPA/PWA/CCC, so the money was not entirely wasted.

Everything considered, the US dodged a bullet in 1929-39.

Where the stupidity and arrogance comes in 2008/09 is not that we
are again spending money on what are quite likely a number of
futile or mis guided attempts to stave off or mitigate an
economic disaster, but that we have another economic disaster of
such magnitude and extent, that we as a nation feel compelled to
again spend such sums, especially as all the experience and
preventative measures enacted, and all the lessons learned as the
result of the last economic h-bomb barrage [1990s dot cons], have
been largely forgotten and/or systematically
repealed/evaded/ignored.

The fact that such expenditures are felt necessary is one thing,
but another thing is that items should have been included in the
various stimulus bills such supplemental appropriations for the
BLS/BEA/GAO etc. for increased staffing and monitoring of not
only how these funds are spent, but the actual results as these
wend their way through the economy [or not if they wind up in a
safe somewhere]. As it stands now, we are spreading money around
like fertilizer, hoping that something grows. While something
may indeed grow as the result of the random application of
fertilizer, it may well be crabgrass or ragweed... [achoo, achoo]


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
Unka' George: I was involved in a GAO audit of positions at the Kwajalein
Missile Range. My wife was a secretary at another group on the base and the
same thing happened to her. The audit team checked my organization (I was
in charge of a group of Civil Servant Engineers that were monitoring the
contractors operating the range) to see if it's existence was justified.
One of their key measurements was, and I'm not BSing, I watched it, they
measured the volume of our closed and locked file cabinets. I told them to
ask me what my groups goals for the year were; and to apply the questions to
other groups that they were auditing. They refused. The Army was in charge
and my boss a Lt. Colonel had never given any of us any direction or
suggestions other than be "Pro-Active". It this audit team was any
indication of the watchdogs that we are going to have over the way the
"Stimulus" Bill is spent, we are going to see a whole bunch of inefficient
wasting of taxpayer's money. I watched a $750Million dollar contract get
mishandled by the Army. I know. I wrote the scope of work for that
contract. As a result of the Army's screw up the winning contractor could
receive the bonus fee if he just asked for it. There were nocontract
clauses specifying contractor performance required to earn the fee..
I don't know about you but I forsee a real circus.

Stu Fields

On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 18:22:55 -0500, Wes wrote:

F. George McDuffee wrote:


The fact that such expenditures are felt necessary is one thing,
but another thing is that items should have been included in the
various stimulus bills such supplemental appropriations for the
BLS/BEA/GAO etc. for increased staffing and monitoring of not
only how these funds are spent, but the actual results as these
wend their way through the economy [or not if they wind up in a
safe somewhere].

Sounds like flooding money into Iraq all over again. I hope the left is just as critical
about it.

Wes
---------
As was proven in S. Vietnam, flooding a country with money is a
sure way to kill it. There were girls making more in the
PXs/Commissaries than bank presidents. Instant chaos.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

"Bruce L. Bergman" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 14:01:40 -0500, "Buerste" wrote:


"Tim Wescott" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 23:32:51 -0500, Buerste wrote:

When I talked to my friend that has a company that TiN coats cutting
tools today, he said that after a poor December and a so-so January,
his
February is booming! I hope it's a good sign to see industrial cutting
tools in high demand.

In every recession I've ever lived through (and even from what little I
know of The Big One in the '30s), life has always gone on.

At some point people get tired of not buying stuff, and companies
realize
that sitting still in a dark room isn't going to save them.

I suspect that we'll see some realignment in the economy if the Dems
don't get too enthusiastic (there was actually a Rick Lowry piece in the
paper today that I agreed with, on just this topic), but I very much
doubt that we're all going to sit shivering and starving on the streets
outside of our former homes while the sun slowly goes out.

--
http://www.wescottdesign.com

In November and December, I didn't have the huge orders from my usual
customers. I know their buying patterns and MRP systems better than they
do
and I knew they were chewing through their safety stock even though their
buyers were on notice to cut back on purchases. All my stuff to them goes
into the mid-range restaurants. I knew that fast-food was actually on an
upswing, high-end eateries were only taking a single digit hit, and my
market mid-range restaurants were about the same. So, I decides to keep
producing at normal production rates and pack the rafters with product.
Well, imagine my smile when my customers call in a panic because their
shelves are bare! I've been able to ship from stock and be a hero! I
hope
they don't keep expecting the zero lead time, I can't afford this
inventory
level forever. I'll bet they will want to rebuild their safety stock all
at
once and put me behind the eight-ball having to run overtime and weekends.
Idiots!

Might want to ease off on your production just a tad to reflect that
single-digit hit without getting stuck with too much inventory - and
still be in business and have some on hand to ship when they do have
money. Because Ohio is probably like everywhere else, the State will
tax you on inventory on hand at the end of the FY, and you don't want
to get nailed. The customers running supply-house operations do the
same thing, let their stock dwindle to the bare minimum right before
the annual inventory count - and if they run Calendar Year, that
explains it.

California has finally run out of creative ways to play "Hide the
Pea" with the budget and they are talking about some real healthy tax
and fee and other "revenue" (wink wink) increases. Which if they get
through the courts unscathed (there's a *reason* we put Proposition 13
through!) are only going to make it worse.

(Ahnold The Governator has turned out to be a bigger Girly-Man than
Gray Davis ever dreamed of. Maria must have hocked his balls. Anyone
want to organize a Sacramento Tea Party?)

-- Bruce --

Ohio changed from inventory tax to a percentage based on yearly sales, we
saved thousands and don't have to play the shell game having lots of
shipments magically "in transit" on the first of the year. I wasn't clear,
mid range eateries have stayed the same in sales. I'm good there!
Industrial stuff is slow but picking up.

On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 15:23:33 -0800, "Stuart Fields"
wrote:

I don't know about you but I forsee a real circus.

A Roman circus where the lions eats the profits?????


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 13:39:37 -0800, Bruce L. Bergman
wrote:

On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 14:01:40 -0500, "Buerste" wrote:


"Tim Wescott" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009 23:32:51 -0500, Buerste wrote:

When I talked to my friend that has a company that TiN coats cutting
tools today, he said that after a poor December and a so-so January, his
February is booming! I hope it's a good sign to see industrial cutting
tools in high demand.

In every recession I've ever lived through (and even from what little I
know of The Big One in the '30s), life has always gone on.

At some point people get tired of not buying stuff, and companies realize
that sitting still in a dark room isn't going to save them.

I suspect that we'll see some realignment in the economy if the Dems
don't get too enthusiastic (there was actually a Rick Lowry piece in the
paper today that I agreed with, on just this topic), but I very much
doubt that we're all going to sit shivering and starving on the streets
outside of our former homes while the sun slowly goes out.

--
http://www.wescottdesign.com

In November and December, I didn't have the huge orders from my usual
customers. I know their buying patterns and MRP systems better than they do
and I knew they were chewing through their safety stock even though their
buyers were on notice to cut back on purchases. All my stuff to them goes
into the mid-range restaurants. I knew that fast-food was actually on an
upswing, high-end eateries were only taking a single digit hit, and my
market mid-range restaurants were about the same. So, I decides to keep
producing at normal production rates and pack the rafters with product.
Well, imagine my smile when my customers call in a panic because their
shelves are bare! I've been able to ship from stock and be a hero! I hope
they don't keep expecting the zero lead time, I can't afford this inventory
level forever. I'll bet they will want to rebuild their safety stock all at
once and put me behind the eight-ball having to run overtime and weekends.
Idiots!

Might want to ease off on your production just a tad to reflect that
single-digit hit without getting stuck with too much inventory - and
still be in business and have some on hand to ship when they do have
money. Because Ohio is probably like everywhere else, the State will
tax you on inventory on hand at the end of the FY, and you don't want
to get nailed. The customers running supply-house operations do the
same thing, let their stock dwindle to the bare minimum right before
the annual inventory count - and if they run Calendar Year, that
explains it.

California has finally run out of creative ways to play "Hide the
Pea" with the budget and they are talking about some real healthy tax
and fee and other "revenue" (wink wink) increases. Which if they get
through the courts unscathed (there's a *reason* we put Proposition 13
through!) are only going to make it worse.

(Ahnold The Governator has turned out to be a bigger Girly-Man than
Gray Davis ever dreamed of. Maria must have hocked his balls. Anyone
want to organize a Sacramento Tea Party?)

-- Bruce --


Too late for that. Time to bust the state into 3 parts.

And let the Urban areas sit in the dark and eat wallpaper, or move
their companies into the Central Valley.

After all..we do have food, water and oil, and lots and lots of space.

That would make you and me very rich men.

Gunner

On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 14:01:40 -0500, the infamous "Buerste"
scrawled the following:

In November and December, I didn't have the huge orders from my usual
customers. I know their buying patterns and MRP systems better than they do
and I knew they were chewing through their safety stock even though their
buyers were on notice to cut back on purchases. All my stuff to them goes
into the mid-range restaurants. I knew that fast-food was actually on an
upswing, high-end eateries were only taking a single digit hit, and my
market mid-range restaurants were about the same. So, I decides to keep
producing at normal production rates and pack the rafters with product.
Well, imagine my smile when my customers call in a panic because their
shelves are bare! I've been able to ship from stock and be a hero! I hope
they don't keep expecting the zero lead time, I can't afford this inventory
level forever. I'll bet they will want to rebuild their safety stock all at
once and put me behind the eight-ball having to run overtime and weekends.
Idiots!

Don't fret. Just charge (or delay) accordingly, Tawm, while reminding
them that "Your lack of planning is not necessarily my crisis." You
put yourself in a better position by calling, saying that you noticed
that their product quantities are down, etc, and to order now before
the 2009 price increase/delays" etc.

--
If we all did the things we are capable of doing,
we would literally astound ourselves.
-- Thomas A. Edison

"Ignoramus9596" wrote in message
...
On 2009-02-14, wrote:
On Feb 14, 4:32 am, "Buerste" wrote:
When I talked to my friend that has a company that TiN coats cutting
tools
today, he said that after a poor December and a so-so January, his
February
is booming! I hope it's a good sign to see industrial cutting tools in
high
demand.



The economy is not is bad as the Democrats have been painting it.
Today in the WSJ is an article comparing todays economy to 1981 and
1930.




By BRADLEY R. SCHILLER

President Barack Obama has turned fearmongering into an art form. He
has repeatedly raised the specter of another Great Depression. First,
he did so to win votes in the November election. He has done so again
recently to sway congressional votes for his stimulus package.
[Commentary] AP

In his remarks, every gloomy statistic on the economy becomes a
harbinger of doom. As he tells it, today's economy is the worst since
the Great Depression. Without his Recovery and Reinvestment Act, he
says, the economy will fall back into that abyss and may never
recover.

This fearmongering may be good politics, but it is bad history and bad
economics. It is bad history because our current economic woes don't
come close to those of the 1930s. At worst, a comparison to the
1981-82 recession might be appropriate. Consider the job losses that
Mr. Obama always cites. In the last year, the U.S. economy shed 3.4
million jobs. That's a grim statistic for sure, but represents just
2.2% of the labor force. From November 1981 to October 1982, 2.4
million jobs were lost -- fewer in number than today, but the labor
force was smaller. So 1981-82 job losses totaled 2.2% of the labor
force, the same as now.

Job losses in the Great Depression were of an entirely different
magnitude. In 1930, the economy shed 4.8% of the labor force. In 1931,
6.5%. And then in 1932, another 7.1%. Jobs were being lost at double
or triple the rate of 2008-09 or 1981-82.

Keep in mind that on the timeline the the recession, we are not yet at
the end of the "year after the crash". The crash of 2008 is obviously
followed by year 2009, just as the crash of 1929 was followed by year
1930. So, comparing where we are now, with 1930, simply is a "apples
to oranges" comparison. When 2009 ends, it could be properly compared
to 1930.

So far, the speed of the contraction, given that we are at a much
earlier stage in it than we would be at the end of 1930, is very rapid
by any standards.

The Great Depression of 1930 and The great Recession of 2009, are both
crises of debt and deleveraging. Events of 1981-1982 were of rather
different nature, dealing with taming inflation.



Download Opinion Journal's widget and link to the most important
editorials and op-eds of the day from your blog or Web page.

This was reflected in unemployment rates. The latest survey pegs U.S.
unemployment at 7.6%. That's more than three percentage points below
the 1982 peak (10.8%) and not even a third of the peak in 1932
(25.2%). You simply can't equate 7.6% unemployment with the Great
Depression.

Other economic statistics also dispel any analogy between today's
economic woes and the Great Depression. Real gross domestic product
(GDP) rose in 2008, despite a bad fourth quarter. The Congressional
Budget Office projects a GDP decline of 2% in 2009. That's comparable
to 1982, when GDP contracted by 1.9%. It is nothing like 1930, when
GDP fell by 9%, or 1931, when GDP contracted by another 8%, or 1932,
when it fell yet another 13%.

Here you are comparing predicions of CBO, with actual course of
events.

Without the bailout, banks such as Citibank would fail, money market
accounts drawn down, with a quick domino effect to follow, and drop of
9% would not be out of realm of possibilities.

Auto production last year declined by roughly 25%. That looks good
compared to 1932, when production shriveled by 90%. The failure of a

Try to compare it to January 1930.

couple of dozen banks in 2008 just doesn't compare to over 10,000 bank
failures in 1933, or even the 3,000-plus bank (Savings & Loan)
failures in 1987-88. Stockholders can take some solace from the fact
that the recent stock market debacle doesn't come close to the 90%
devaluation of the early 1930s.

It follows, reasonably well, the timeline up to early 1930. (which, to
me, has no predictive meaning).

Mr. Obama's analogies to the Great Depression are not only
historically inaccurate, they're also dangerous. Repeated warnings
from the White House about a coming economic apocalypse aren't likely
to raise consumer and investor expectations for the future. In fact,
they have contributed to the continuing decline in consumer confidence
that is restraining a spending pickup. Beyond that, fearmongering can
trigger a political stampede to embrace a "recovery" package that
delivers a lot less than it promises. A more cool-headed assessment of
the economy's woes might produce better policies.

Mr. Schiller, an economics professor at the University of Nevada,
Reno, is the author of "The Economy Today" (McGraw-Hill, 2007).


This article is intellectually dishonest, as he intentionaly compares
early stages of this recession with late stages of 1930's depression.

i


I can't say exactly what the guy was trying to prove but you're right that
his comparison is not a valid one. The current situation today isn't
comparable to any other time. Too many things are completely different now.
But one thing is similar, the economic situation we are in is a dire one. It
could go either way. Without the proper ameliorative action we could spiral
into a depression. On the other hand, if things are handled well, we can
come out of this fairly quickly and can make the fundamental changes that
will hold us in good stead for a long time. We have to see how Obama's team
handles the problem. First thing is to see what, if any, effect the stimulus
bill has. If it helps then we know we're on the right track. If it's too
small and it doesn't make a significant improvement that may spell big
trouble. Right now we have to see what Obama's leadership brings. But
whatever happens we are in a very bad fix at the moment. That's about the
only thing similar with the 1930s.

Hawke

Keep in mind that on the timeline the the recession, we are not yet at
the end of the "year after the crash". The crash of 2008 is obviously
followed by year 2009, just as the crash of 1929 was followed by year
1930. So, comparing where we are now, with 1930, simply is a "apples
to oranges" comparison. When 2009 ends, it could be properly compared
to 1930.

So far, the speed of the contraction, given that we are at a much
earlier stage in it than we would be at the end of 1930, is very rapid
by any standards.

The Great Depression of 1930 and The great Recession of 2009, are both
crises of debt and deleveraging. Events of 1981-1982 were of rather
different nature, dealing with taming inflation.

1932 was probably the worst year of the Great Depression....so we havent
hit bottom yet by any means

But by 1934 it was obvious, every time you saw the light at the
end of the tunnel, you could be sure the Government would come along
and make more tunnel.


So what? If we had just done nothing, let the government do nothing but sit
on it's hands the Depression would have been over real quick? We should have
just left it to business and the private sector to bring us out of the
Depression? I can't say I've heard anyone say that, even the most simple
minded fool. After all, most people think it was the private sector that
brought us the Depression to begin with. Thinking that having the government
stay out of it when the country was going into the worst economic period in
its history is just plain stupid. This idea that the government can't do
anything right and is the cause of our problems is crap. Well, it's true if
republicans are running the government. Then you're right everything they
touch they turn to ****. It's the opposite when they are where they
belong...in the minority.

Hawke

Wes wrote:
"Buerste" wrote:

In November and December, I didn't have the huge orders from my usual
customers. I know their buying patterns and MRP systems better than
they do and I knew they were chewing through their safety stock even
though their buyers were on notice to cut back on purchases.

There is a lot of that going on. No one wants to have too much
inventory on hand since capital is life. It gives you options.

My employer is seeing sales that are not declining past where we
thought the market was going to be. The cuts made was to get to a
point where managing up would be the order of the day vs managing
down.

It totally sucks if you get kicked to the curb but if you are one of
those that get to ride it out, life goes on. If the company outlasts
the competition life gets better.

Once upon a time, settlers moved into the interior of the US. The
indians killed some of them for that. As bad as it gets now, we are
so better off than in times before.

If those reading this have lost their job, well I've been there. It
sucks, no pretty face to put on it.

Wes
A short-sighted employer let me go just before Thanksgiving . Three weeks
later I got a call from a competitor . I'm makin' a bit less , but this shop
is stable , and in a couple of years I'll be back up where I was . Only one
day I've not worked a full day , which is remarkable for this time of year
and the market conditions . And I coulda worked all day that day , but
wanted some time with my wife ...
--
Snag
every answer
leads to another
question

On Feb 14, 9:08 pm, Gunner Asch wrote:


1932 was probably the worst year of the Great Depression....so we havent
hit bottom yet by any means

Gunner

Hard to say if we have bottomed or not. The stock market has stayed
fairly level during the last three months. Nucor is up about 10% in
the last three months. GE is down about 25%. Danaher is flat.

The housing markets vary a lot depending on where you are and how hot
the market was. As Ed said the housing market is stable in his
neighborhood in NJ.

My guess is that we are near the bottem, but are likely to not move up
much anytime soon. The local government is looking at raising taxes,
which will keep a damper on things. The same thing will happen all
around the country, but will be worse where the government expanded in
accordance with Parkinsons Law. Or at least it corrolary. Government
expands to spend all the tax revenues in boom years and raises taxes
during any busts.

Dan

On 2009-02-14, John R. Carroll jcarroll@ubu wrote:
This article is intellectually dishonest, as he intentionaly compares
early stages of this recession with late stages of 1930's depression.

It also ignores the eight trillion dollars pumped into the economy during
the last fifteen months of the Bush administration.
Badly done or not, the world would have reverted to stone axes and caves had
the financial services and insurance industries been allowed to collapse on
their own.

So, in the beginning of 2009, we are about where we were in early
1930, with respect to GDP drop and such.

The difference is that in 1929 and prior, the government did not pump
in ayn comparable amount of money, and now it did.

This is ominous.

--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

On 2009-02-14, Wes wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

It also ignores the eight trillion dollars pumped into the economy during
the last fifteen months of the Bush administration.
Badly done or not, the world would have reverted to stone axes and caves had
the financial services and insurance industries been allowed to collapse on
their own.

I'm not a big fan of regulation but finance and insurance is a place that a bit of
goverment looking out the rest of us might not be too bad.

It is hard to bull**** your way making real physical products but
numbers relying on other numbers is a prime place for the bs artist
to do their dirty work.

Wes, I think that by now is it is clear that any activity leading to
"creation of money", such as banking in all forms, need to be
regulated with a very heavy hand.

--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

On 2009-02-14, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 12:34:16 -0600, Ignoramus9596
wrote:


Keep in mind that on the timeline the the recession, we are not yet at
the end of the "year after the crash". The crash of 2008 is obviously
followed by year 2009, just as the crash of 1929 was followed by year
1930. So, comparing where we are now, with 1930, simply is a "apples
to oranges" comparison. When 2009 ends, it could be properly compared
to 1930.

So far, the speed of the contraction, given that we are at a much
earlier stage in it than we would be at the end of 1930, is very rapid
by any standards.

The Great Depression of 1930 and The great Recession of 2009, are both
crises of debt and deleveraging. Events of 1981-1982 were of rather
different nature, dealing with taming inflation.

1932 was probably the worst year of the Great Depression....so we havent
hit bottom yet by any means

It seems to be the case. I am slightly mopre optimistic, as I hope
that the government will be able to inflate us out of this trouble. I
have stopped making extra payments on my fixed rate mortgage because of
this.

--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 23:13:01 -0800, "Hawke"
wrote:


Keep in mind that on the timeline the the recession, we are not yet at
the end of the "year after the crash". The crash of 2008 is obviously
followed by year 2009, just as the crash of 1929 was followed by year
1930. So, comparing where we are now, with 1930, simply is a "apples
to oranges" comparison. When 2009 ends, it could be properly compared
to 1930.

So far, the speed of the contraction, given that we are at a much
earlier stage in it than we would be at the end of 1930, is very rapid
by any standards.

The Great Depression of 1930 and The great Recession of 2009, are both
crises of debt and deleveraging. Events of 1981-1982 were of rather
different nature, dealing with taming inflation.

1932 was probably the worst year of the Great Depression....so we havent
hit bottom yet by any means

But by 1934 it was obvious, every time you saw the light at the
end of the tunnel, you could be sure the Government would come along
and make more tunnel.


So what? If we had just done nothing, let the government do nothing but sit
on it's hands the Depression would have been over real quick? We should have
just left it to business and the private sector to bring us out of the
Depression? I can't say I've heard anyone say that, even the most simple
minded fool. After all, most people think it was the private sector that
brought us the Depression to begin with. Thinking that having the government
stay out of it when the country was going into the worst economic period in
its history is just plain stupid. This idea that the government can't do
anything right and is the cause of our problems is crap. Well, it's true if
republicans are running the government. Then you're right everything they
touch they turn to ****. It's the opposite when they are where they
belong...in the minority.

Hawke

----------------
You need to check the historical record. Both the Republicans
and Democrats in the 1932 elections ran on platforms calling for
a balanced budget and were worried about inflation. This was the
general wisdom and assumptions of the times.

Both Hoover and Roosevelt in the first stages of his
administration tried to deliver on these promises. They cut
Federal spending, increased taxes and duties, and restricted the
FRB from buying securities in open market operations to
restrict/avoid any increase in the money supply, as well as
retaining the gold standard.

The effect was to amplify and exacerbate the disaster we now call
the Great Depression, by further depressing spending.

Although most of the stock market losses were paper, huge amounts
of real liquidity/capital had disappeared in the stock market
crash, and a very real money panic / liquidity crisis resulted.
This was not so much directly from the crash/market, as the side
effects when the holding companies and investment trusts created
as a result of the stock bubble collapsed.

The governmental actions of both the Hoover and early Roosevelt
administrations simply made things much worse. This is indeed a
case where the economy would have been better off if the
government had done nothing, rather than exactly the wrong
things, or the "right" things in a wrong way, e.g. the
Reconstruction Finance Corporation.

It appears accurate to criticize the Roosevelt administration for
not knowing what they were doing, but then no one else knew what
to do either, in the sense of correcting the problems, other than
trying to treat the worst symptoms such as setting up soup
kitchens to avoid mass starvation and food riots.

Roosevelt's strength was that he would try something, and if it
didn't work, go on to try something else, rather than keep
beating a dead or dying horse.

We are extremely lucky to have the FDIC as this has avoided the
money panic that occurred after the 29 crash.

It does however appear that several of the structural problems
that amplified and injected the '29 market crash into the real
economy are again at work such as grossly ineffective
/inefficient corporate structure and governance [e.g. GM,
Chrysler], grossly ineffective/inefficient bank/quasi bank
structure and governance [e.g. BoA, Citigroup, AIG], and the wide
existence of financial structures subject to chain reaction
collapses such as large loans with covenants. As many of the
corporations, particularly in commercial real estate, are closely
linked, a default/bankruptcy in one major loan may well trigger a
covenant breaches in a whole series of major loans, as a result
of a series of asset/collateral losses. This is a very unstable
situation.

It also appears that there were again huge amounts of stocks
purchased on credit. Not so much by individuals through
brokerage margin accounts this time, but by the hedge funds,
using borrowing "under the radar" of the SEC, and other
regulatory agencies. The feed-back effect is still the same:
when stock prices drop, the hedge funds must sell their stocks to
cover their loans, which causes further price drops.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

On 2009-02-14, F George McDuffee wrote:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0395859999/...l_34ih5gk1yc_e
You most likely can get this from your local library. Very
good/easy read, although it makes your hair stand up as you see
the parallels between the 1929 crash and the 1960 debacle, during
which Galbraith was writing] and compare these with today's new
items. Example: compare the 1929 "investment trusts" with the
2008 "hedge funds"

I bought the book. Arguably the 1929 investment trusts were of
different natue than today's hedge funds, most of which do not try to
simply buy stocks on margin.

Today's hedge funds seem to be doing very similar things to each
other, though, such as statistical risk arbitrage (buying private
issue bonds and shorting treasuries) or long/short stock buying where
they are all long the same things and short the same things. This may
also end up badly for them.

i


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

On 2009-02-15, Hawke wrote:
I can't say exactly what the guy was trying to prove but you're right that
his comparison is not a valid one. The current situation today isn't
comparable to any other time. Too many things are completely different now.
But one thing is similar, the economic situation we are in is a dire one. It
could go either way. Without the proper ameliorative action we could spiral
into a depression. On the other hand, if things are handled well, we can
come out of this fairly quickly and can make the fundamental changes that
will hold us in good stead for a long time. We have to see how Obama's team
handles the problem. First thing is to see what, if any, effect the stimulus
bill has. If it helps then we know we're on the right track. If it's too
small and it doesn't make a significant improvement that may spell big
trouble. Right now we have to see what Obama's leadership brings. But
whatever happens we are in a very bad fix at the moment. That's about the
only thing similar with the 1930s.

Any real economy effects of stimulus, would only be seen in 9 months
or so. Everything else is just talk.

--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

Keep in mind that on the timeline the the recession, we are not yet at
the end of the "year after the crash". The crash of 2008 is obviously
followed by year 2009, just as the crash of 1929 was followed by year
1930. So, comparing where we are now, with 1930, simply is a "apples
to oranges" comparison. When 2009 ends, it could be properly compared
to 1930.

So far, the speed of the contraction, given that we are at a much
earlier stage in it than we would be at the end of 1930, is very rapid
by any standards.

The Great Depression of 1930 and The great Recession of 2009, are both
crises of debt and deleveraging. Events of 1981-1982 were of rather
different nature, dealing with taming inflation.

1932 was probably the worst year of the Great Depression....so we havent
hit bottom yet by any means

But by 1934 it was obvious, every time you saw the light at the
end of the tunnel, you could be sure the Government would come along
and make more tunnel.


So what? If we had just done nothing, let the government do nothing but
sit
on it's hands the Depression would have been over real quick? We should
have
just left it to business and the private sector to bring us out of the
Depression? I can't say I've heard anyone say that, even the most simple
minded fool.

You should be aware that there's a book that's acquired a lot of positive
reviews, which is now the cornerstone of the argument that FDR extended the
Depression by mean of his policies. This has now become the basis of an
entire right-wing posture arguing that the Depression was a result of
liberalism.

Gunner et al. quote it from time to time, but I've looked into it and I'm
sure they haven't actually read it. They have read the blog comments about
it, and it's now their gospel.

To analyze that argument requires some pretty deep knowledge of economic
history, and there is no chance whatever that the righties here understand
what the argument is or what they're talking about. But I just thought you
should be prepared. If you get a response, it probably will be a URL
pointing to the book or to someone's comments about it.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:


The latter group happen to be the ones who presided over the collapse in
the first place. They call themselves "conservatives," although many would
argue with their self-described label. My hope is that they're ignored,
that Frank Rich is right in his latest column:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/op...rich.html?_r=1

...and that the conservatives just got outsmarted by one very smart
politician who happens to be our president.

I almost sent you a link to that Ed, but figured you'd get to it on your
own.
He's certainly nailed my view of today's Republican party well enough.
What the administration does next will reveal the motives behind the
stimulus bill just passed.


JC

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:


The latter group happen to be the ones who presided over the collapse in
the first place. They call themselves "conservatives," although many
would argue with their self-described label. My hope is that they're
ignored, that Frank Rich is right in his latest column:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/op...rich.html?_r=1

...and that the conservatives just got outsmarted by one very smart
politician who happens to be our president.

I almost sent you a link to that Ed, but figured you'd get to it on your
own.
He's certainly nailed my view of today's Republican party well enough.
What the administration does next will reveal the motives behind the
stimulus bill just passed.

I never miss a Frank Rich editorial, just for the writing alone, even if I
don't care about the subject.

Yeah, sometimes he rings the facts like a bell. There is a bit of wishful
thinking in there but his analysis of what just happened hits several marks
that most of the press missed. And to think, Frank Rich used to be stuck as
a theater reviewer. g

BTW, I have a short one for you and George from the March issue of
_Harper's_ that I'm going to send you as soon as it becomes available. I
have the print edition but they don't put it online for a while after that.
It's Lapham's best editorial in many years, IMO.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 06:38:03 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Feb 14, 9:08 pm, Gunner Asch wrote:


1932 was probably the worst year of the Great Depression....so we havent
hit bottom yet by any means

Gunner

Hard to say if we have bottomed or not. The stock market has stayed
fairly level during the last three months. Nucor is up about 10% in
the last three months. GE is down about 25%. Danaher is flat.

The housing markets vary a lot depending on where you are and how hot
the market was. As Ed said the housing market is stable in his
neighborhood in NJ.

Housing in California continues to drop like a stone down a hillside.

My guess is that we are near the bottem, but are likely to not move up
much anytime soon. The local government is looking at raising taxes,
which will keep a damper on things. The same thing will happen all
around the country, but will be worse where the government expanded in
accordance with Parkinsons Law. Or at least it corrolary. Government
expands to spend all the tax revenues in boom years and raises taxes
during any busts.

We have a second wave of subprimes coming do in the next several months
from what I understand, and a credit card implosion on the horizon as
people who have been funding their shotfalls on their cards all hit the
absolute limits and go into default

Ive been told by someone who is very very smart on the subject..that we
wont hit bottom until 2010 or early 2011.

I hope he is wrong...but so far..he hasnt been.

Gunner


Dan

"Upon Roosevelt's death in 1945, H. L. Mencken predicted in his diary
that Roosevelt would be remembered as a great president, "maybe even
alongside Washington and Lincoln," opining that Roosevelt "had every
quality that morons esteem in their heroes.""

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 14:01:40 -0500, the infamous "Buerste"
scrawled the following:

In November and December, I didn't have the huge orders from my usual
customers. I know their buying patterns and MRP systems better than they
do
and I knew they were chewing through their safety stock even though their
buyers were on notice to cut back on purchases. All my stuff to them goes
into the mid-range restaurants. I knew that fast-food was actually on an
upswing, high-end eateries were only taking a single digit hit, and my
market mid-range restaurants were about the same. So, I decides to keep
producing at normal production rates and pack the rafters with product.
Well, imagine my smile when my customers call in a panic because their
shelves are bare! I've been able to ship from stock and be a hero! I
hope
they don't keep expecting the zero lead time, I can't afford this
inventory
level forever. I'll bet they will want to rebuild their safety stock all
at
once and put me behind the eight-ball having to run overtime and weekends.
Idiots!

Don't fret. Just charge (or delay) accordingly, Tawm, while reminding
them that "Your lack of planning is not necessarily my crisis." You
put yourself in a better position by calling, saying that you noticed
that their product quantities are down, etc, and to order now before
the 2009 price increase/delays" etc.

--
If we all did the things we are capable of doing,
we would literally astound ourselves.
-- Thomas A. Edison

It's hard to get price increases. I always get notice that I must decrease
my prices 10%. They do that to blunt any yearly price increases, it's just
SOP for them. We negotiate and they usually cave at +3-5% increases and we
promise quality and service. It's a dance. Our niche is to small for the
Chinese to get into and our costs are too low, due to our technology, to
attract another domestic manufacturer. There are only two other
manufacturers of flat-wire products left in the states. They are only a
small fraction of our capacity and their technology is generations behind
us. One of these two will hopefully cease production on those items and buy
from us, we are already in negotiations. I'll soon have the next machine on
line that should see a 30% increase in productivity. I know, it's the same
machine I said would come on-line months ago. It'll be at least another
month. Assuming all the new technology works as advertised, we'll retrofit
the other machines.

On 2009-02-15, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 06:38:03 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Feb 14, 9:08 pm, Gunner Asch wrote:


1932 was probably the worst year of the Great Depression....so we havent
hit bottom yet by any means

Gunner

Hard to say if we have bottomed or not. The stock market has stayed
fairly level during the last three months. Nucor is up about 10% in
the last three months. GE is down about 25%. Danaher is flat.

The housing markets vary a lot depending on where you are and how hot
the market was. As Ed said the housing market is stable in his
neighborhood in NJ.

Housing in California continues to drop like a stone down a hillside.

My guess is that we are near the bottem, but are likely to not move up
much anytime soon. The local government is looking at raising taxes,
which will keep a damper on things. The same thing will happen all
around the country, but will be worse where the government expanded in
accordance with Parkinsons Law. Or at least it corrolary. Government
expands to spend all the tax revenues in boom years and raises taxes
during any busts.

We have a second wave of subprimes coming do in the next several months
from what I understand, and a credit card implosion on the horizon as
people who have been funding their shotfalls on their cards all hit the
absolute limits and go into default

Ive been told by someone who is very very smart on the subject..that we
wont hit bottom until 2010 or early 2011.

I hope he is wrong...but so far..he hasnt been.


I have been wrong often, but I would think that 2010 is a reasonable
estimate.

--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

"Ignoramus20263" wrote in message
...
On 2009-02-15, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 06:38:03 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Feb 14, 9:08 pm, Gunner Asch wrote:


1932 was probably the worst year of the Great Depression....so we
havent
hit bottom yet by any means

Gunner

Hard to say if we have bottomed or not. The stock market has stayed
fairly level during the last three months. Nucor is up about 10% in
the last three months. GE is down about 25%. Danaher is flat.

The housing markets vary a lot depending on where you are and how hot
the market was. As Ed said the housing market is stable in his
neighborhood in NJ.

Housing in California continues to drop like a stone down a hillside.

My guess is that we are near the bottem, but are likely to not move up
much anytime soon. The local government is looking at raising taxes,
which will keep a damper on things. The same thing will happen all
around the country, but will be worse where the government expanded in
accordance with Parkinsons Law. Or at least it corrolary. Government
expands to spend all the tax revenues in boom years and raises taxes
during any busts.

We have a second wave of subprimes coming do in the next several months
from what I understand, and a credit card implosion on the horizon as
people who have been funding their shotfalls on their cards all hit the
absolute limits and go into default

Ive been told by someone who is very very smart on the subject..that we
wont hit bottom until 2010 or early 2011.

I hope he is wrong...but so far..he hasnt been.


I have been wrong often, but I would think that 2010 is a reasonable
estimate.

The bottom for whom?
We are stumbling along the bottom right now Ig, at least as far as I'm
concerned.
Foreclosures are beginning to moderate and job losses will taper off over
the next quarter. In fact, mortgages that reset are providing a stimulus
effect of their own as payments drop.

Equities will bump along between 8 and 9 thousand and the S&P 500 will
decline to 670 or so but neither are very important at this point.
Most of the gas is out of the tank today. Private equity is starting to get
itchy and once regulatory reform surfaces in Congress we ought to see things
pop. Tim Gietner is going to be federalizing the banking system throughout
2009/2010. This "stress test" stuff is just eye wash that will be used to
explain and justify that course of action to the American public.

The bush administration never understood the value in explaining their
activities, they even resented the implication that they ought to do so, and
it's something that Gietner learned and has always been an Obama strength.
Americans quit following Bush because he was a poor leader on the one hand
and his admionisration produced a nearly unmittigated string of disasters on
every front. America didn't follow Bush the Leader into hell, they were
mislead there over the course of eight years and were dragged kicking and
screaming at the end.

For better or worse, in three weeks the new administration has rolled out
Federal policy through the Treasury and Fed totalling three trillion dollars
and gotten an eight hundred billion dollar social spending bill through
Congress which is only a start. No countries were invaded, no lives lost and
if that isn't leadership of a very high order, I don't know what is. That's
the real reason I see this as the actual bottom. All that remains is for the
detritus to settle and that ought to be complete no later than September.

JC

On 2009-02-15, John R. Carroll jcarroll@ubu wrote:

I have been wrong often, but I would think that 2010 is a reasonable
estimate.

The bottom for whom?

For employment.

We are stumbling along the bottom right now Ig, at least as far as I'm
concerned.
Foreclosures are beginning to moderate and job losses will taper off over
the next quarter. In fact, mortgages that reset are providing a stimulus
effect of their own as payments drop.

Equities will bump along between 8 and 9 thousand and the S&P 500 will
decline to 670 or so but neither are very important at this point.
Most of the gas is out of the tank today. Private equity is starting to get
itchy and once regulatory reform surfaces in Congress we ought to see things
pop. Tim Gietner is going to be federalizing the banking system throughout
2009/2010.

I admire the specificity of your predictions, but I am afraid that
they say more about the forecaster than about the future. It is a very
difficult to predict matter.

I consider many of those things to be unknowable, and work based on
that assumption.


This "stress test" stuff is just eye wash that will be used to
explain and justify that course of action to the American public.

The stress test is applying reasonable valuation to bank assets to
determine which ones really are insolvent.


The bush administration never understood the value in explaining their
activities, they even resented the implication that they ought to do so, and
it's something that Gietner learned and has always been an Obama strength.
Americans quit following Bush because he was a poor leader on the one hand
and his admionisration produced a nearly unmittigated string of disasters on
every front. America didn't follow Bush the Leader into hell, they were
mislead there over the course of eight years and were dragged kicking and
screaming at the end.

For better or worse, in three weeks the new administration has rolled out
Federal policy through the Treasury and Fed totalling three trillion dollars
and gotten an eight hundred billion dollar social spending bill through
Congress which is only a start. No countries were invaded, no lives lost and
if that isn't leadership of a very high order, I don't know what is. That's
the real reason I see this as the actual bottom. All that remains is for the
detritus to settle and that ought to be complete no later than September.

We'll see. Keep in mind that there are other countries involved, the
assumption of continued willingness of foreigners and US investors to
buy Treasuries may be questioned, and so on. If the Treasury bubble
bursts in a bad way, we may see a lot more trouble.

--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/