It's Official : The Recession Began in December 2007

The Nation Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) said that the US has been in recession since December 2007.  Of course, that is precisely the time I had given here on The Futurist, except that my declaration was back in February 2008.  So I arrived at the same timing estimation, just 10 months before the Federal Government, back when knowing this would actually have been useful. 

The longest post-war recession in the US lasted 16 months, so if this recession lasts beyond April of 2009 (which it very well may), it would be the longest post-war recession the US has had.  Of course, this recession was shallow for the first 10 months, and only turned sharply lower in October of 2008, so 'duration' is not the whole story. 

At present, the consensus is that all of 2009 will effectively be recessionary, putting the recession at 24 months in total duration.  Whether this occurs or that pessimism itself is over-shooting remains to be seen. 

Comments

[jeffolie]

I predicted this recession in 2007 as The Crisis in The Summer of 2008.

Futhermore I have predicted in 2007 The Crisis in the Fall of 2009.

I predicted the BOB last fall. The Big Obama Bailout (BOB) will peak in The Crisis in the Fall of 2009 with Obama buying empty houses. This will stabilize the housing prices in 2010 and begin the onset of rapid inflation.

=================

Meanwhile a disaster is coming when credit card limits are cut in half.

http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2008/12/whitney-credit-card-consumer-liquidity.html

[Syphax]

Do you still think world GDP growth will definitely remain positive or has the global situation deteriorated to the point that this may no longer true?

PS: I'm sure I'm not the only one that tells you this, but you should update more often! You have a great blog here.

[GK]

Syphax,

Yes, world GDP growth will still be positive in 2009. This is almost entirely due to China, though.

Thanks. Well....it's still a hobby..

[GK]

jeffolie,

I'm not sure that the credit-card pullback is a bad thing, beyond the initial shock.

When a person buys something on a credit card, they still have to pay for it (and often pay more, due to interest). The only time they don't pay is during bankruptcy, which distributes the costs to others.

Reining this in may be good, while ensuring that only 'better' consumption occurs.

[Bas]

I once read an article and dissected it on my german blog stating that 2009 would see a world recession, the source they used claimed that world growth would be much less than 1 per cent but positive, so I don't see why they call it recession. But maybe at least 2 quarters are negative making it a downturn what do you think?

[jeffolie]

gk

The disaster would be the initial shock to reducing the GDP in an ailing economy.

Credit cards are a convenience and small profit for me. I always pay them off immediately so that I carry a zero balance. The 2 that I use give me a 5% rebate that adds up to a nice sum after a couple of years.

The primary danger in my usage is that I may buy something I do not need or really want because of an impulse, that I would not buy if I was limited to the cash I was carrying at the moment.

For most people the persistent use of credit cards evilly compounds their bad money management. But not for me.

[GK]

jeffolie,

I still think it is a good thing after the one-time shock, as credit-card consumption beyond one's income is unsustainable.

In your case, the money you save instead of buying something may go towards investment vehicles, or otherwise boosts the nation's savings rate.

The solution to economic growth is not for poor people to spend more than they can ever pay back, or for rich people to buy things they otherwise would not. The solution is productivity growth.

Bas,

The world has not had negative GDP growth since 1973. So a global recession still has positive GDP growth, for some reason.

[jeffolie]

from the SFGate. Their bailout tally is $8.5 trillion committed and $3.2 trillion actually spent/exhausted already.

Here is a table showing how the $3.2 Trillion was spent:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2008/11/26/MNVN14C8QR.DTL

[jeffolie]

another jeffolie predicts...coming true

I predicted a Federal bailout of State and local government. Now it appears certain:

"Obama and congressional Democrats have promised that soon after Inauguration Day he will sign an economic stimulus bill that could exceed $500 billion. The governors intend to request about $176 billion of that -- $136 billion for infrastructure projects and $40 billion to bolster Medicaid health programs that serve the poor and disabled."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/01/AR2008120102622.html

[jeffolie]

This is the single best article I have read in many months:

Monetizing the Debt
By Axel Merk

"This aritcle is an excellent discussion of the new, freely admitted, Fed policy of" printing money." It is lenghtly and somewhat complex, but worth the effort. The more we understand the governemnt solutions to the financial crisis, the more we will see the probelmatic long term implications of these policies.."

http://www.europac.net/voicesframeset.asp?id=14

[Sublime Oblivion]

GK, do you still believe in the strong 2010 recovery?

"The world has not had negative GDP growth since 1973. So a global recession still has positive GDP growth, for some reason." - GK

Probably because of the 1.2% world population growth rate.

Although, the same thing should be done for national accounts. It's stupid that GDP growth of 0.1% formally saves the US from recession on paper, when its population growth means that its per capita figure actually declines by 0.8%.

[GK]

GK, do you still believe in the strong 2010 recovery?

Yes. Note that I was talking about World GDP.

Slightly positive GDP growth does not save the US on paper, as the recession has been dated back to 12/07, despite positive GDP growth for the first 6 months of it.

The population point is true, though. This means that the US can make recessions very rare indeed by increasing population through greater immigration of skilled workers. This has many other benefits as well.

[Olives and Arrows]

So I arrived at the same timing estimation, just 10 months before the Federal Government, back when knowing this would actually have been useful.

And you also predicted that the US would win in Iraq in 2008. Even the leftist media tools such as the AP now reluctantly admit to the victory, at least in principle. Will you be writing a follow up post to your prediction? Perhaps a modest bow is in order since there were very few people that confidently predicted American victory like you did.

[Bas]

Thanks for the clarification.

Regarding Iraq. It is true that the US has won so far, but that is in jeopardy with the coming showdown with Iran.

[GK]

Bas,

Iran is greatly overrated as a threat. Note that I hardly ever discuss it here. Providing weapons to terrorists is a problem, but Iran themselves can directly do very little. They are not a powerful country.

Iran can cause (some) trouble whenever oil is between $70 and $120 a barrel. Note that they go quiet whenever oil is outside this range. Below $70 or above $120, they are in a weak position. Ready why here.

[jeffolie]

For quite a while now I have been predicting the BOB (Big Obama Bailout). Now there are demands for a $ Trillion bailout to be signed by Obama within days of Jan 20th. Keep in mind that this is just the first part of what will be and ever increasing BOB. From Bloomberg:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Calls for $1 Trillion Stimulus Package Grow as Economy Tumbles

By Rich Miller and Matt Benjamin

Dec. 4 (Bloomberg) -- The one thing that isn’t shrinking in the U.S. economy these days is the size of the stimulus package that financial experts say is needed to turn it around.

With automobile sales dropping, payrolls plunging and manufacturing contracting, economists from across the political spectrum are raising the ante on how much the government should lay out. Some are now calling for at least a $1 trillion boost.

[Bas]

You do not believe that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons or are you not considering this as a threat? Tehran is actually preparing for a strike from Israel or the US before the Inauguration.

[Zyndryl]

economists from across the political spectrum are raising the ante on how much the government should lay out. Some are now calling for at least a $1 trillion boost

Ok, anyone who claims to be an economist and advocates a trillion krill for a 'boost' is no real economist in my book.

Then again, Krugman got the Nobel Prize so I guess the race to incompetence is strong in that field right now.

[jeffolie]

What the public ignores is that the Fed and government together have already spent $3.2 Trillion and have commitments worth upto $5.3 Trillion mostly through the Fed. All this has been done to fight the recession in just 3 months !!!

[GK]

Bas,

I don't think anything major is going to happen with Iran in the next couple of months.

Iran will never put itself in a position where it has to fight a conventional war with Israel and/or the US. Iran would lose badly. Remember that Iran fought Saddam for 8 years, and still only managed a stalemate.

Iranian nuclear weapons could go to terrorists, but we already live under that threat with Pakistan, where AQ Khan was happily selling nuclear secrets.

[Bas]

Regarding the economy, this guy made some predictions and was laughed at:
FYkpw&eurl=http://reason.tv/roughcut/show/619.html&feature=player_embedded

[brokerdavelhr]

Bas,

Many people agreed with Peter at that time. I hate to say it, but Jeffolie is calling it pretty good now. True he/she is calling it at a worst case scenario, but that video made me remember a concept a I learned when I was 15. - The more people who do not do due diligence on an impending situation (or those who know and take advantage), and continue to act in a destructive manner(or in acts of ignorance), the greater the disaster will be when it hits. So Jeffolie (much as I hate to say it), might just be right.

GK,
I posted some links on the history of the middle eastern countries in question in the -2008 Victory article (part 2). These links give a history on those countries, and books you can read to dig even deeper.
Iran has never directly gone to war with Iraq. What they have done is had border skirmishes against Husseins army. On top of that, they were smart enough to arm the Kurds, and fund their little revolt. Then Hussein wisened up, and made em a deal - a port for the halting of all support of the rebellion. This halt lasted long enough for Saddam to massacre the Kurds (witness the chemical attacks). By creating a rule by fear, Saddam managed to do something that few of his predecessors have even dreamed of - have a fairly stable country. Look at the facts. How many Iraqi's etc have died since 02? How many foreign soldiers (US, English, etc.), have died on that soil since 2002? Now take that number, and compare it to any 6 year term of Saddam's rule. You will find (and I will provide links if you wish), that the number was a lot lower (with a lot less global involvement costing other countries billions to trillions of dollars), when Saddam was in power. So yes we won in Iraq, but what did we win? If you follow any kind of historical pattern at all, you will not be surprised to find that within 10 years, they will all be fighting again down there. This time, with a grudge that encompasses alot more then their older enemies - US. So where does Iran fit in?
True Iran is not as much of a threat. Yet. Since the time where they stopped supporting the Kurds against Saddam, their involvement with terrorism, has become more in the nature of funding. Funny thing about financially supporting terrorism, is that it is hard as hell to prove, and allows you to say that you never fired at shot against your enemy. Think about that. The real threat from Iran (from a historical AND modern viewpoint), is not nukes or chems, but the use of funds to keep these little 'terrorist' groups going. The ones who stand to profit most from it (in the form of oil prices etc), are the ones who cry to the UN for help when in fact they could very well have instigated the whole thing. It is a more stategical method of accomplishing an end to a means. They do not have the force to hurt us or anyone else, but they certainly have the funds.

As for the recession- I want to know 2 things. 1- Where is all the funding for the bailouts coming from? 2- Considering the fact that the majority voted in someone who will take a molehill of issues and turn it into a mountain of catastrophies (if congress dictates it or if he talks them into it), what event in the next four- eight years do you see happening that will wake America up?

[jeffolie]

1- Where is all the funding for the bailouts coming from?

The answer is clearly from 3 sources:
1. Taxes
2. Borrowed money
3. Printing of money

Currently the $8.5 Trillion has come from about $1 Trillion that the Fed recently created (printing money) also called monetizing debt also called quantitative easing. Taxes are mostly spent on programs for old people (social security, medicare, medicade), secondly the military etc.
Most of the Bailout money is borrowed by the Treasury selling notes and bonds which are currently in very high demand and carry very low interest rates.

[jeffolie]

Here comes Part I of the BOB (Big Obama Bailout):

Obama Plans Largest Building Program Since 1950s (Update1)

By Hans Nichols

Dec. 6 (Bloomberg) -- President-elect Barack Obama said he’ll make the “single largest new investment” in roads, bridges and public buildings since the Eisenhower Administration to lift the sagging economy and create jobs.

Obama, in his weekly radio speech today, said his plan to create or preserve 2.5 million jobs will also include making public buildings more energy efficient, repairing schools and modernizing health care with electronic medical records.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aBcPiaRqqffg&refer=worldwide

[brokerdavelhr]

Jeffolie,

Thanks :-)

Is there any link you could send me that has those appropriations covered? I read the amendments and bills that cover it, but it is leading into one giant maze as these documents assume that you have already read thousands of pages worth of pre-existing ones. There are two major issues I have come across already.
1- Money has to come from somewhere. If more money is printed, it's value will go down on principle alone.
2- How do they replenish these sold off or satisfied bonds and notes?

I agree with your assessment of where most of the money goes, but many bills in progress seek to change it. Actually, I would say a good third of the national budget (before all these bailouts added the icing on the cake) programs, are very wasteful and help noone.

[jeffolie]

For the US Budget see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget,_2008

For Government bailout $8.5 trillion breakdown see:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2008/11/26/MNVN14C8QR.DTL

This is the single best article I have read in many months:

Monetizing the Debt
By Axel Merk

"This aritcle is an excellent discussion of the new, freely admitted, Fed policy of" printing money." It is lenghtly and somewhat complex, but worth the effort. The more we understand the governemnt solutions to the financial crisis, the more we will see the probelmatic long term implications of these policies.."

http://www.europac.net/voicesframeset.asp?id=14

[jeffolie]

There is hard core evidence of classic deflation. That deflation caused by overcapacity which results in severely declining profits to the point where the business dries up and dies. Here is a clear example of basic products being oversupplied. I am describing what has happened to aluminum scrap, paper scrap etc.

===========================================

Just months after riding an incredible high, the recycling market has tanked almost in lockstep with the global economic meltdown. As consumer demand for autos, appliances and new homes dropped, so did the steel and pulp mills' demand for scrap, paper and other recyclables.

Cardboard that sold for about $135 a ton in September is now going for $35 a ton. Plastic bottles have fallen from 25 cents to 2 cents a pound. Aluminum cans dropped nearly half to about 40 cents a pound, and scrap metal tumbled from $525 a gross ton to about $100.

It's getting more difficult to find buyers in some markets, Steenstra said.

While few across the country appear to be taking such drastic measures as Steenstra, the recycling market has gotten so bad that haulers in Oregon and Nevada who were once paid for recyclables are now getting nothing or in some cases are having to pay to unload their wares.

In Washington state, what was once a multimillion-dollar revenue source for the city of Seattle may become a liability next year as the city may have to start paying companies to take their materials.

Some in the business are describing the downturn as the worst and fastest ever.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/business/6152343.html

[brokerdavelhr]

Well, I have done a lot more looking into it, and am finding out just how big of an issue it is. The only thing that really bothers me, is that after a library visit, and hours of online research (looking for sources), I have found very little, and I mean almost nothing officially published on the history of the Fed in detail. On the website for any one of the Fed Reserve Banks or regions though (take your pick), the only information they have, is a listing of current institutions, all of which are privately owned, and have no information on their history, and how they got to be in service of the Fed. What I have found, is that the Bailout largely went to these banks that already work for the fed. In other words, they were selling treasuries and calling a few, to help pay for it. What really disturbs me, is that these banks have no real history to them, and only get their real business from the govt. Likewise the govt in debts itself to these private institutions, to keep the Fed going - In other words, nothing outside of printed money is backing it. When money gets tight (which it will as the population continues to grow or hard ecomonic times come as proven on the bailout), they just print more. The govt relies on this money to keep it going. In return, the banks get to say that they are backed by the govt. No objects (gold, silver, etc) are are used as collateral.
There are many reasons listed on the Feds website for this. 1- Massive banking failure brought on by a lack of regulated Banking System that they say is responsible for events that led up to and included, the great depression.
In 1913, the fed was created. Democrats insisted that it was govt owned and operated. The facts told a different story - all the banks that controlled the fed were privately owned - JP Morgan, etc. This was actually done to prevent the govt from controlling the entire system. It was created to stop banks from performing bad practices like giving out loans to people who could not possibly repay them, or on hunches.
This system is flawed no matter how you look at it. The banks were failing due to bad policy, much like they have in recent years. So now the govt is using tax payers money to bail out said banks to save their vested interest. In other words- paying off one debt by creating another. To be clear, the US has no where near enough in physical assets, to cover the national debt. The money that we receive as compensation for work, is not real to anyone but us. It is also interesting to note that some of the same banks that belong to the Fed, were paid out by the BOB (bail out bill). In essence - our taxes are going to pay for said banks bad practices.
So why do banks do this? Simple-greed. In the bill that created the fed, and most consecutive amendements, the controllers of the board are allowed all sorts of extreme priveledges (at our expense), and still are. So when the news reported that these executives whose banks recieved help from the govt (BOB), and were spending tons of money in extras (almost literally if done in 10 dollar bills), it is not hard to imagine why. Many of the banks who were bailed out, are (believe it or not) part of the Federal Reserve, who will sell devalued treasury notes to the US, simply print more money, and raise taxes. For proof of this- please go to the Feds website and read the bill and amendments that created it. You will note in the bill that the execs of said banks are granted amazing priveledges.
In essence, you have the same old story- govt trying to bail out instituions (mind you only the ones who they have a vested interest in - note that no automakers were bailed out despite the fact that people need cars to get to work) for their own stupidity.
Now here comes the clencher. - The IRS. Set to enforce the money flow of the US. They are most noted for the collection of income taxes. Funny how they support the collection of monies for a govt that pisses it away, yet will seize your assets if you cheat them in the same manner.
Which leads to another issue - by buying (and I quote) 'troubled assets that noone else would',  the govt has in fact bought private property. And the banks benefitted from giving bad loans. Be clear on this- not all banks that were bailed out, were part of the FED. Some banks or institutions would have gone out of buisness years ago, or not been created at all without govt intervention. This would have been a good thing.
Thing about economics is, it works in cycles. There will be recessions and depressions. However people (being what they are) begged the govt (thats what we are told anyway), to bail them out (the creation of all thats wrong with this country) of their own stupidity. This is funny to me because anyone who actually does not believe that the govt spends more then it takes in (when it comes to the so-called 'welfare' of the people), never think about this before asking for help.
So how did this happen to begin with? This is the answer that is easier to address then the outcome. People are people. In a free nation with little or no regard for responsibility or discretion, asked for it, or allowed it to happen. People love easy things. They love entertainment, and they love to blame. They hate anything that makes their life hard or uncomfortable, hate to be bored by details, and hate taking responsibility. Most of them could care less about the future impact of an action.
The Fed is a system that has obviously failed its mission - to prevent banks and the monetary system from either being abused, or creating another 'financial crisis'. In point of fact, it has actually created a few of its own. Worse yet, it protects the very institutions that are creating the problem. Meanwhile convincing the US that it is entirely our fault that it happened, and that of the republicans. Then they turn around, and do this BOB thing, and get away with it.
To quote Wilson "I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country.
A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit.
Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation,
therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men.
We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely
controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world.
No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by
conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by
the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."

[jeffolie]

brokerdavelhr

You have stated this very well.

[brokerdavelhr]

Jeffolie,

Thanks :-). The only thing that troubles me,is how the govt is now doing a 360 and saying they are strongly considering an auto BOB (that just sounds like a bad joke doesn't it?). To the best of my knowledge, the auto industry would only be an effect so to speak. The democrats no less. Less then a week ago, Obama was full against it. Now the very same people who promoted his political standing (Nancy Pelosi, etc.), are going for it.
By this, I mean that if the Auto companies do fail, supply and jobs will decrease. On the bad side, people loose jobs, and car choices are slimmed down. This could have the effect of other companies increasing their prices, but in this case, I doubt it. Ford, GM, and Chrysler were all beaten to the punch to become mainstream in the hybrid race. Car sales have decreased due to people who can afford newer cars buying hybrids, which until recently, was mainly foreign cars. The companies about to get bailed out had plans to enter that market back in '02. But they decided not to, and this is one of the results.
Fact- The government has been going after 'big oil' for years, and pushing to turn to other sources of energy.
Fact- The loud mouth media plays double-talk, and convinces the herd that it is in their best interest to play along.
Fact- The newer govt is pushing for the US to globalize, and not in a good way.
Fact- By offering tax breaks on fuel efficient cars, and poorly managing the 'oil crises', they had a big hand in the failure of these companies and gas to skyrocket. Then when Ford, GM, etc pour more money into making fuel efficient cars, it is to late.
Fact- Both the private sector and the govt are to blame for this. Not to mention the citizens who bought into it enough to vote these clowns back into office for round two.

[brokerdavelhr]

I think the house is going for this for three reasons- 1- to increase their political standing (after all, people who buy hybrids in most states get tax breaks on both property tax and sales tax) by being able to help their little 'energy saving agenda'. Which is as invalid point because there is no imperical hard evdidence that supports this so called 'energy crisis', or global warming for that matter.
2- To gain even more power over the private sectors by saying what goes. One of the dems head hanchos herself (Hillary *cough*) said 'No people can live together in a civilized society without a strong govt to lead them'. They figure by saving jobs etc., by providing this short term plan, that they can better appeal to the voters without informing them of the downside or the long term consequences.
3- One of the terms of said bailout, would be that they cut the payroll, and 'revamp' their operations. This is stupid. Why would people who are barely paid enough as it is, stay when their pay is being cut? I will tell you why - because of all the govt programs that will be the 'saviour' of the oppressed. They do not see the long term consequences of such an action. Another move toward a govt controlled social environment. The house members pushing this agenda are not hurting or worried about their jobs after all.

So I will end it with this- The bank BOB had no such requirments attached to it. The auto industy does, so this further proves my point.

World citizen,
The ideas of all these current issues stem from politicians a while ago. In the early stages it seems like a good idea. But because of its flaws, it has catastrophic long term events. Said politicians saw these programs in many other countries in their early stages, and thought they were a good idea. Like the fed for instance. Only the next new thing, is global healthcare. Once again, our politicians go to foreign countries and think to themselves, hmmmmm- what a great idea. That was over 4 years ago when they started laying the groundwork to force it down our throats by making seemingly harmless protection and insurance laws causing healthcare prices to dramatically increase. Now once again they 'have a plan', that is 'proven in so many other countries'. Only nothing could be farther from the truth. Healthcare in those countries has had a steady decline over the last decade, and are now very criticized by their citizens. Yet to the people who never bother to look this stuff up, or have never been to another country, they believe this be a great idea. This just proves again that those who do not study history, are doomed to repeat it.

GK,
Do this prediction for me - we already know that economy will be hurting after the next four years. After all, the pres-elect will be working on the same side as these clowns. The real damage will not occur though until the the next 4 year term when it comes time to pay the piper. But who is the piper? And are we the rats who will be drowned in the process?

[brokerdavelhr]

Two last things for now GK, and I will quit wasting your webspace for awhile- I promise.

1- China and many other countries have even less physical goods/ person then we do here in the US. So when our markets take a hit, it only stands to reason that theirs would follow suit. The direct result of entire countries founded on nothing but paper, this is a great illustration of why the US should be against globalization. Working with foreign countries when it is of long term mutual benefit is one thing. Adapting their failed systems is a whole differant ball game altogether.

2- When it the news states that the banks who were bailed out have restrictions placed on them, it is a little misleading. What it really states is 'Preventing the top 5 executives to not recieve them getting golden parachutes that would not allow them pay the govt back'. This means that other execs have a free run, and that the govt believes it will be paid back. This is a meaningless statement when you realize that the top banks that received the majority of the BOB, are either former, or current members of the FED. In other words, the FED just bailed itself out. Think about it.

[Bas]

Another Peter Schiff Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4n3g5lUgkWk

Are you willing to update your article on the US as a superpower 2030? Or do you believe in a comeback of real capitalism in the US after Bush/Obama?

[GK]

Are you willing to update your article on the US as a superpower 2030?

Why would I update it? You have not provided any logical reasoning whatsoever. All you have is 'hope'.

You never even heard of Peter Schiff until 3 weeks ago. Furthermore, even he isn't claiming that the next 22 years will be bad for the US, so on what basis to you jump to that conclusion?

You would have to rebut all 10 points in that article. So far, you have not even made 1% of the necessary case.

[Bas]

First let me say I have absolutely no "hope" that the US will collapse, I love the United States. So please don't think I am one of those guys that would be happy about it. However, we see this inflationary tendencies, we will see the dollar collapse and we see scapegoating of the "capitalist" for this. And it is Democrats in both houses and in the White House. And the Republicans are just a minimum better, after all they are responsible for the bailouts this year. Do you see a comeback of capitalism after Obama? All the other points are the result of a strong economy, are they not?
In reality, I would be happy if you convince me, since as you see I am not an anti-American, just an anti-FED Capitalist.

[brokerdavelhr]

Just ran across an interesting piece.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/130352.html

It explains quite a bit actually, and at the same time, is an interesting study.

Bas,
I hate to say it, but no matter angle you look at from (whether a historical trend, facts or whatever), GK is right. When people are desperate enough for a change it will happen. This has never taken any more then 10-15 years tops for a complete 'reset'? (I do not know the correct term.

I do not like the idea of the Fed either, but we are stuck with it. History has proven that it can help, it just needs to be used the right way and not abused as it is so often to answer the call for a quick fix. The people vote the govt into office. Govt listens to people as best it can and responds. So in the case of the next four years, blame the herd who saw fit to inflict upon us another four years of tomfoolery. I say that if we as citizens are really that worried about it, we should put our money where our mouths are, and start looking for the next 2012 candidate and get them the support they need to finally make a real change.

Oh yeah, this will be incredibly difficult to do considering the fact that no one wants to pay the piper. I keep using that example because this fits the shoe very well -

People scream for help. Along comes the piper. Piper says tit-for-tat. People say ok. People prosper. Piper demands payment. People do not want to pay piper from keeping them away from an event that was inevitable anyway. It seems so unfair, and after all, how hard did he really work to make their lives better?
Piper takes away. People are suddenly mad at their leaders whom they supported for not paying the piper after agreeing to deal from the get go.

And so the story goes. So simple, that it can be explained to a 10 yr old. Jeez, how stupid have we become anyway?