# Depression 2.0



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

It's my name for this generations Depression (if we have one).

What would Depression 2.0 look like in your opinion? The internet stays on and available for most people, or not?

How does technology affect it? The speed of information would definitely affect it in many ways (look at all the information on internet rumors about shortages, etc.).

Are things like food, electricity, internet and entertainment so important to the modern American that we will basically just use Depression 2.0 to "nationalize" all the corporations, etc?

Which, (here's a bit of political twist I find ironic) if you KNOW history you know that it was almost this exact scenario in Germany that led to the rise of Hitler. 

As you know, I am a Christian and as such I can see the rise of a greater Hitler on the horizon, who comes on the scene to restore our world confidence after a great time of global depression and hardships. And no, I don't believe we know who that is. I don't believe it's Bush, McCain, Obama, Clinton, etc. 

Would Depression 2.0 be global in scope? (it seems as if it would) and how many wars will be spawned from it. 

It is easily argued that WWII was a result of the depression. Germany had a formidable army and worthless currency. Multiply that by 20 countries...

It is indeed interesting... what would Depression 2.0 look like to you?


----------



## calliemoonbeam (Aug 7, 2007)

I'll be the first to say I don't know as much about history as I should, but wasn't the rest of the world pretty much okay when we went through the depression in the 30s? I think this time it very well could be worldwide, especially with all the talk about Europe right now and knowing how much some of the countries have invested in the US and being tied to our financial welfare. 

There is already so much tension between a lot of countries, and I can see where a lot of resentment could arise from our part in leading to other countries' financial downfall which, if not handled very carefully, could lead to another world war. If I think about it too much, it will just freak me out, lol. I hope you're right about Obama not being the next Hitler, but I just have such bad feelings about him. It's nothing I can point to that he's done or said and pin it down, it's just a gut instinct, sort of precognition as it were. I've had these feelings many times in my life, and I'm almost always right. I'm just hoping this is one of the few times I'm wrong. I haven't said this on the boards for fear of stirring everyone up and I hope it doesn't now. Like I said, it's just one person's gut feeling, and I'm praying so hard that I'm wrong.

As to basic utilities, it would be hard, but I think people could learn how to live without them, although it might take the "homesteaders" of the world to teach the rest once they realize they have no choice but to learn or die. The same with food. More people every day are starting to realize what a precarious situation we're in and realize that they need to be more involved. Whether it will be enough people and in time to prevent worldwide famine and death I don't know, but I hope so. Again, the "homesteaders" may find themselves unexpected leaders in their communities and may have to teach in ways they never thought about before. 

As for the internet...I sincerely hope it stays on, since it's how I do all of my work and earn my living. If a depression had happened 10 or even five years ago, I'd say no way, it's gone. But technology has progressed so much and it has become so entrenched in our day-to-day lives and business operations that I think it would survive. It might be unaffordable for the majority of people who use it just for entertainment now, but I think it would be, if not a necessity, very high on the list of wants. It has become such a source of worldwide knowledge, a way to connect with the outside world that we've never had before, that I don't think people are going to give it up without a heck of a fight. Not to mention all the general information to be gleaned for students of all ages and especially homeschooling families, as well as for those of us beyond school age but still eager to learn something new every day.  No matter how bad things get, people still need that ray of sunshine, something to keep hope alive, and I think the internet, should it survive intact, would be a very affordable way to do that when all other forms of entertainment have become financially unfeasible. That's my two cents anyway, lol.


----------



## booklover (Jan 22, 2007)

I coined it "The New Depression" on another board. The Great Depression, was indeed worldwide as well. It wasn't well-documented simply because globalization didn't really exist and it didn't affect us (nor did ours affect theirs).

I think that will be the big difference this time around. We rely so heavily on imports. It will be difficult to even speculate how this Depression would play out.

I am not a Christian and am an Obama supporter. I don't want to turn this into GC, but I think he is our best hope for the economy. Historically, the lower-middle income earners and the economy in general is stronger with a democrat in the Oval Office. I do think, however, that we are headed for The New Depression and the momentum has been building up for 8 years, and therefore is now inevitable.


----------



## hoggie (Feb 11, 2007)

hhmm - not sure about this one.

When Hitler came to power, and set into motion the events that caused WWII, yes Germany was in a depression but there were two things that I see as being different.

Firstly, Germany as a country felt that they had been hard done by after The Great War. They had huge war debts which left the country in a terrible condition. Hitler was clever enough to turn that to his advantage - he was going to "save" the country from the evil rulers outside who were "still trying to ruin Germany". He had lots of ill feelilng already current which he could turn to his advantage. 

Secondly, information in the 1930's was a very different thing to now. Hitler ran the information service, so the vast majority of Germans only knew what Hitler wanted them to know (as did the British Govt. during the war and I suspect probably the US govt. too). He could spin them any line he wished and they would believe it. I think it would be almost impossible in the current world to manipulate information in that way. No matter how hard any potential "ruler" tried to take hold of the information channels, "unwanted" information would filter through and that ruler's power would eventually diminish. 

hoggie


----------



## Freeholder (Jun 19, 2004)

I think, given the technological world we live in (which is partially responsible for the mess we now find ourselves in), Depression 2.0 is a very apt name for what is coming -- if you don't mind, I'm going to mention it on a couple of other boards.

As for Obama, you can have him if you want him, and in fact it looks like we'll probably get him, but I strongly suspect that you aren't going to like the end results. Think Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. I honestly believe that's what we'll end up with if he becomes President.

Kathleen


----------



## chickenista (Mar 24, 2007)

What worries me the most about Depression 2.0 is that I DON"T have any idea how it is going to play out.
We only bought our house a year ago, but the payments are manageable... so far.
So I do worry about becoming one of the teeming homeless.. though I have places we could go.

But aside from my personal worries... I do not think that any administration is going to step in and fix this. It may matter who we elect, but there is nothing they can really do.
That leaves a hole...who and what will fill it. I ditto the Hitler analogy... but I cannot imagine who. I would think a very smart business man and what would they promote?
It is all so up in the air.
We need someone inspirational that can get all Americans to sacrifice like we did in WWII.. we need someone that can band us together instead of us turning on each other. But at the moment we do not have a common enemy. We are burned out on "terror"... WWII was good in that we could all hate the bad guys. Who will we band against?
It is very monumentally disturbing stuff.....
I am just battoning down the hatches here as best I can and watching, watching, watching, watching.


----------



## OrganicCat (Sep 23, 2008)

Internet will HIGHLY likely stay on. As an IT person I can pretty much verify this 99.5%. It's not a centralized network anymore, it's widely distributed, so in order for it to "shut down" EVERY point in the world would have to shut down. If anything, it will speed up due to the low amount of bandwidth being used due to people leaving the grid.

Fields like IT will slow down, but not go into a recession except hiring. They're too beneficial and tied to other critical parts of our system to shut down. Construction will have a problem, as they are almost directly tied to "the man" and extra floating money for improvements. Only the most vital will stay on, leaving a large unemployed labor force behind (this is already happening and has been over the last two years).

School will become less important as a hiring factor, going back one or two degree levels to minimum requirements (due to lack of qualified applicants for education required jobs). Prices for food will fluctuate quite a bit, no idea what they'll set at. Since the bailout passed, my guess is higher due to inflation.

Crime will rise of course. House sales will go down, along with prices due to low new buyer market. Rentals will become popular again, especially in city/suburb areas.

More extremists will arise as they always do on both sides of the isle (in part due to lack of education). Some areas will see a high level of authoritarianism, whether it be "fascist" or "socialist" in nature. Class warfare will be at an all time high, since the richest of the rich will be relatively stable in existence and everyone else will bottom out. Haves and have nots will be clear as day.

The hippie movement will revive. It's been on it's way for a few years now anyway, but with a bolstering of it's numbers from out of work, out of money people it will swell again. College students who drop out will join this as well as high school students who can no longer afford the school loans to join college. The green movement overall will shift from big business technologies to producing these same technologies, but in the "backyard" at low/no cost once people realize they can resume a tentative style of their formal life with small time solutions like building your own wind turbine.

Backyard gardens MIGHT see a resurgence, based on the area. Rural, definitely, sub-urb, depends on the population size (low yes, high no, unless encouraged by SMART local government).

That's about it for now, any questions on my predictions? 

Edit: To callie's question, yes the rest of the world was affected when we underwent the first depression. It was worldwide but impacted us the hardest. You can find out more on Wikipedia 

Edit2: The causes were entirely different between this depression and the last. The last was because your average Joe was allowed to invest directly into the market (no broker required) and that caused some very foolish decisions to be made. Basically, your average Joe lost money directly in the last one. In this one, the banks screwed up (showing that nobody can be trusted in the gambling game that is the stock market) but they're shifting the burden of responsibility onto the people via that bailout bill. Currently though, the weight is on them. When the tax man comes due for that bill, the weight will shift to us...if we decide to pay it 

Edit3: In summary, this depression can't really hurt us as bad as the previous one, no matter how bad it gets, unless the government takes drastic steps to make it so (the bailout is honestly still pretty minor). Feel slightly safer in that statement if you will, but it will still hurt a fair amount no matter how it turns out.


----------



## Guest (Oct 6, 2008)

I don't think we are in another Great Depression scenario. Yet, anyway. When unemployment tops fifteen percent we will be. Until then we're not quite there.

But things are beginning to look rather dark so it wouldn't be a bad idea to start doing whatever one needs to do get on and stay on a sustainable footing for the time being.

We all have certain goods and services that we have to have regardless. Then there are those things that we like to have, but that are not really necessities. Start examing the "like to haves" closely to decide in what order you will jettison them so as to still be able to obtain the "have to haves."

.....Alan.


----------



## Razorback21 (May 13, 2003)

What would depression 2.0 look like to me? Hmmm...good question. Well, for one thing,
the way this one is evolving (a leveraged based meltdown) would show who has been living the borrowed life and who has been living the cash life. That would come to light real quick.

Materialism would give way to resource management. Most people would have two work lives: their job (if they have one) and their after job, which would consist of growing food for the family to survive.

Less Government services would mean you would have to provide more security for your family (dogs, fencing, guns, neighborhood coops), and how you related to the others when times were good will get magnified when times are bad. If you were keeping up with you friends and neighbors, do things for them, etc. when times are good, they will be there for you when times are bad. If are clueless to who your neighbors are, when times are bad, that is not going to be a good thing.

In all of the breakdown of society and loss of jobs, I believe electricity in America will still be available and affordable for many people. Electricity doesn't rely on a high percentage of imported fuels and with so much of our life connected to electricity, that is the one thing our Government will see to its availability.

I could see even in a deflationary currency situation that items like arable land, water sources, and tools for growing food gaining in value. Anyone who knows how to grow food in abundance will be the new professional of his/her community.

On the dark side, I could bands of gangs roving the countryside and towns in search of food and assets. Which is where your security would come into play.


----------



## Haggis (Mar 11, 2004)

During early years of the Great Depression there was no _help_ for the poor, no unemployment insurance, no Social Security, and no agriculutral programs doling out money, or food stamps; these days the old, the poor, the infirm, and farmers have help from the government. Were the government to suddenly be unable to provide these "entitlements" the Great Depression might look like a cake walk.


----------



## p1gg1e (Aug 20, 2008)

Haggis said:


> During early years of the Great Depression there was no _help_ for the poor, no unemployment insurance, no Social Security, and no agriculutral programs doling out money, or food stamps; these days the old, the poor, the infirm, and farmers have help from the government. Were the government to suddenly be unable to provide these "entitlements" the Great Depression might look like a cake walk.


They had "help" for the poor just not in a federal form. There were more families though with working farms ( not talking about my neighbors who mow 20 acers :stars: ) and could feed themselves and others. Families moved into houses together etc. I agree though that since we have allot of people who dont know how to fish that there will be a huge issue of dependent people.:bash:


----------



## Ohio dreamer (Apr 6, 2006)

seedspreader said:


> It is easily argued that WWII was a result of the depression. Germany had a formidable army and worthless currency. Multiply that by 20 countries...
> 
> It is indeed interesting... what would Depression 2.0 look like to you?


I think if we do make it to Depression 2.0, war will break out. The US is spread thin at the moment and I can see Russia jumping on that fact, especially with (Venezuela??) getting very chummy with them - another very anti-American government. I think what we saw happen in Georgia (country not the state) is exactly what we will see all over the place if things economically get that low.

I don't think, as of now, we are defiantly going to hit depression. I think there are allot of off ramps we could take before we get there...but will the new Pres and new Congress be able to work together to hit those off ramps?? Will government in other countries be able to hit their off ramps?? Only time will tell.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

Well that's why I said "if". I don't think it's a foregone conclusion. I've just been reading what other countries are doing and thinking it looks awfully familiar (the past is the future sort of thing).


----------



## OrganicCat (Sep 23, 2008)

Ohio dreamer said:


> I think if we do make it to Depression 2.0, war will break out. The US is spread thin at the moment and I can see Russia jumping on that fact, especially with (Venezuela??) getting very chummy with them - another very anti-American government. I think what we saw happen in Georgia (country not the state) is exactly what we will see all over the place if things economically get that low.


I'm not sure what you mean by "war will break out". War is constantly breaking out, what would a US recession have to do with that? I mean, war is breaking out regardless of what our economy does, especially more prevalent in areas that our economy doesn't even affect. Do you mean a MAJOR war between superpowers? Between who? Nobody is dumb enough to attack another superpower considering the advent of nuclear weapons.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

seedspreader said:


> It's my name for this generations Depression (if we have one).
> 
> What would Depression 2.0 look like in your opinion? ?


I was reading TIME magazine at the doctors office this morning (infection in my leg, again) and thats what TIME called it also.


----------



## OrganicCat (Sep 23, 2008)

Off topic, but try taking alka-selzter twice a day for that infection if it's not already deep in the blood. Cranberry juice also. This really only works well if it's on the onset of infection. Saves us tons of money and trips to the doctor for infections from stubbed toes to UTI.


----------



## booklover (Jan 22, 2007)

mnn2501 said:


> I was reading TIME magazine at the doctors office this morning (infection in my leg, again) and thats what TIME called it also.


I had forgotten about that... my dh sent me a link to the article. Here it is, where they call it Depression 2.0. It's also a good article in regards to explaining the historical parallels (closer to the bottom of the page).


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

OrganicCat said:


> Off topic, but try taking alka-selzter twice a day for that infection if it's not already deep in the blood. Cranberry juice also. This really only works well if it's on the onset of infection. Saves us tons of money and trips to the doctor for infections from stubbed toes to UTI.


Thanks I'll give it a try along with the anti-biotics they gave me, last time this happened I ended up in the hospital. Its only been about 3 days since I noticed it, but its already pretty advanced.

Sorry, didn't mean to disrail the thread.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

mnn2501 said:


> I was reading TIME magazine at the doctors office this morning (infection in my leg, again) and thats what TIME called it also.


Do you think they'll give me credit? http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/showthread.php?t=271542&highlight=depression+2.0&page=2


----------



## booklover (Jan 22, 2007)

seedspreader said:


> Do you think they'll give me credit? http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/showthread.php?t=271542&highlight=depression+2.0&page=2


Unfortunately, I think Christopher Laird got the actual credit here.  

I still don't see it as being a repeat of the last depression because bank deposits are insured this time around. Germany just guaranteed 100% of deposits and I think the US will follow suit in the coming months.

The tanking of the markets is scary, but nothing like last time. I guess we'll have to wait and see. I still think it's going to be a New Depression, completely different in the way it looks and feels and acts.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

It really doesn't matter if money is guaranteed if the banks don't have it... and if the government just starts the printing press, the money will devalue even greater.

If you had 10,000.00 under your bed in 2000 it would now be worth about 6700.00, and that's in "prosperous" times. 

2.0 in computer speak means it's the updated version of the old version.


----------



## ladybug (Aug 18, 2002)

So in terms of the lower-middle classes how will a depression affect them? I'm not sure what class we would be considered but we don't really do any heavy spending anyways so hopefully things wouldn't change too much?


----------



## horselover.com (Jul 3, 2006)

seedspreader said:


> 2.0 in computer speak means it's the updated version of the old version.




with each bailout, er, um, rescue, will the 2.0 progress? (2.1, 2.2, new and improved, 100% guaranteed 2.3)


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

booklover said:


> Unfortunately, I think Christopher Laird got the actual credit here.


DOH!!


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

horselover.com said:


> with each bailout, er, um, rescue, will the 2.0 progress? (2.1, 2.2, new and improved, 100% guaranteed 2.3)


Yes! And each will have bugs and security holes in them like windows... lol.


----------



## ovsfarm (Jan 14, 2003)

Dh and I were discussing this today. He thinks we should prepare for wages to remain level, with no raises on the horizon, and possibly some decreases, much higher taxes (we live in Ohio, oh joy), all purchased products to cost much more, and for having to deal with whether to/how to/when to offer help to loved ones, relatives, and friends. In general, a significant amount of belt tightening.

IMO, the rich won't let the poor reach the point of complete destruction. They want us as a nation of wage slaves. If we lose our homes and cars and are too hungry to work, then we will be no good to them and they won't be able to get any richer. But if they can keep us up to our collective eyeballs in debt so that we will continue toiling away to buy the necessities of life from them, then they have us as their "cash crop". They won't let us perish, just as I won't let my sheep perish. But for most, I fear it will be a very unpleasant, worry-fraught existence.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

ovsfarm said:


> Dh and I were discussing this today. He thinks we should prepare for wages to remain level, with no raises on the horizon,.


Raises? whats a raise, oh yeah now I remember I got 1.6% 2 months before I was laid off. That was the first raise in 5 years.


----------



## Chuck-prime (Jul 24, 2007)

seedspreader said:


> It's my name for this generations Depression (if we have one).
> 
> What would Depression 2.0 look like in your opinion? The internet stays on and available for most people, or not?
> 
> ...



If there were future generations...if....then it may be referred to as the _Greater_ Depression.



Hypothetically?

Economic collapse. Power shift from East to West (as it has been since the Babylonian Empire).

Either Israel bombs Iran, and/or Syria bombs Israel. Either way, Syria bombs Israel.

That fleet-buildup of Soviet ships at Syria? No invasion of Israel by Russians (yet), but anything aircraft coming from Israel gets picked off.

Israel attacks those Russian ships.


Massive all-out conventional war between Syria and Israel; Damascus gets flattened (Isaiah 10).



After Israel has spent her weapons, _*then*...Russia, Turkey, Libya, & Iran meet up on the plans of Megiddo _(Babylon isn't mentioned in Ezekiel 38/39).


What do we and the other cubs of Tarshish do? _All we'll ask is, "Have you come to take a spoil?"_



The massive mega-army of Russians, Libyans, Turks & Iranians - at Megiddo - _*gets annhilated by the LORD.*_


Then...after the smoke clears....the Royal Prince south of Hadrian's Wall (boundary of the original Roman Empire) will step in and say _"I ratify the currently existing 7-year peace treaty..."_


By then, we won't be here. But you know that.



Just my take. Not the most important thing in the world.

.


----------



## sgl42 (Jan 20, 2004)

doug casey calls what's coming "the greater depression". 

i think it will be worse for the US than the 1930. Back then, we were the low cost mfg for the world (china is today). today, we flip condos and shuffle mortgage papers. yes, we still have a large mfg base, but it's been dwinding for decades, and is a smaller percent of our economy. we produce litle the rest of the world needs/wants, the dollar isn't backed by anything tangible, and we've flooded the world with paper promises over the last couple decades and they're tired of it.

also, we've built out an entire infrastructure and consuption lifestyle on cheap oil and just-in-time inventory mgmt (ie, suburbia with litte/no public transit; supermarkets with only a few days stocks; appliances dependent on electricity, even gas stoves with electric glowbars). this will fail catastrophically, in ways that it didn't in the 1930s when there was more slack in the system, due to problems in one part of the system. witness katrina, witness gas shortages in the SE due to Ike, witness ag shortages (wheat, rice, lemons, etc).

After the first round effects of this financial crisis, we've also got peak oil barreling (no pun intended) down on us. And our social security ponzi scheme and the retiring boomers too. either one alone would be a major problem. all three coming in rapid sequence... 

I expect much of the middle class to be wiped out over the next 5-10 yrs, and be rather surly and grumpy and hard to govern because of it. We either get a police state to suppress it, or we have chaos, or we get the rise of a new Hitler to manipulate it. One can hope for something better than this, but my reading of history says these are the most likely.

Plus there will probably be another world war sometime in the next 5-10 yrs -- that's just what happens when one empire falls and another takes it's place. The war will probably be the worst time.

but other than that, i'm optimistic... ;-)

--sgl


----------



## unregistered29228 (Jan 9, 2008)

I wonder, though, if any future depression wouldn't be easier on people than the last one. Almost everyone has cars, most big cities have public transportation, we have antibiotics and better medical care. We understand more about hygiene, balanced diets, and we have more "stuff" to start out with. My grandparents were born to very poor families, and THEN entered the Great Depression. They had one outfit to wear, either no shoes or one pair of shoes, no car or public transit, and many children were already sleeping 4 to a bed and dropping out of school by 8th grade to go to work. Most children were born at home without a doctor, people never went to see a dentist, and vaccinations were non-existent.

We're at least facing whatever the future has to hold with a better start than that prior generation. I have to think that my closet full of clothes will serve me for years. Especially those smaller sizes I've saved "for when I lose weight".


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

Contrarily, more people might die "nowadays" than in the earlier scenario because we are so dependent on those things like hygiene, balanced diet, antibiotics, etc. 

I don't know that, I am just suggesting that we really don't know.

I don't buy into "hype" either way... hype that everything is rosy and nothing can happen to us that has happened in the past, or hype that it's the end of the world. 

I suppose we will see what it is either way or neither way.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

Oh, one other thing... hardship is always measured on what we have known vs. what is known currently.

The Great Depression in America would have been a cake walk for a modern day Somalian.


----------



## Jakk (Aug 14, 2008)

Mom of Four, there are a lot of people who could easily lose their car, or not afford the insurance or gas to be able to drive it if they lost their jobs. Along with the job loss goes the medical insurance. Antibiotics are not easy to obtain nor affordable without insurance. Healthy food is also out of reach. I spent three years living in my own Little Great Depression when I was first divorced. I didnt have a dime to my name and my car sat in the driveway because I couldnt afford to have it on the road. As luck would have it, I wound up very sick with a blood clot in my leg and an embolism in my lung. After 10 days in the hospital I had $70,000 worth of doctor/hospital bills that I couldnt pay because I had no health insurance. I think people today are so accustomed to the 'easy living' lifestyle that a true Depression will _seem_ much worse.


----------



## Narshalla (Sep 11, 2008)

seedspreader said:


> It's my name for this generations Depression (if we have one).
> 
> What would Depression 2.0 look like in your opinion? The internet stays on and available for most people, or not?
> 
> ...


Well, I'll tell you one thing that Bush has accomplished . . . . As long as he is in office, we have significantly less to worry about in that area. Other countries know that he *will* fight back (unlike Clinton, or even Bush 41.) McCain will too. Obama . . . . ?

For those of you who are tempted to argue about this, think about Libya . . . Very soon after we invaded Iraq, they knuckled under to "International" pressure. After all, if you _know_ you will get it if you don't behave, you are more likely to behave, aren't you?


----------



## Narshalla (Sep 11, 2008)

ovsfarm said:


> Dh and I were discussing this today. He thinks we should prepare for wages to remain level, with no raises on the horizon, and possibly some decreases, much higher taxes (we live in Ohio, oh joy), all purchased products to cost much more, and for having to deal with whether to/how to/when to offer help to loved ones, relatives, and friends. In general, a significant amount of belt tightening.
> 
> IMO, the rich won't let the poor reach the point of complete destruction. They want us as a nation of wage slaves. If we lose our homes and cars and are too hungry to work, then we will be no good to them and they won't be able to get any richer. *But if they can keep us up to our collective eyeballs in debt* so that we will continue toiling away to buy the necessities of life from them, then they have us as their "cash crop". They won't let us perish, just as I won't let my sheep perish. But for most, I fear it will be a very unpleasant, worry-fraught existence.


IMO, _they_ didn't put us is debt, _we_ did that to ourselves. And _we_ can work our way out, too.

Do not blame bad times on others. Most of us cannot logically blame anyone else for our situation, because many of the things we have done in the past affect how we recover from adversity.

Some idiot hits your car . . . . but _you_ didn't have insurance. You SO cleans out your bank accounts . . . . but _you_ knew (s)he was a user, you just chose not to get out of the relationship. Your entire neighborhood got wiped out be Katrina . . . but _you_ knew you were below sea level, and that the local gov't was so corrupt that the levies _unsafe._ You lost your job . . . not that it matters, because you have spent more than you brought in for your entire adult life and have so much cc debt that you don't know what to do.

Most "disasters" in our lives are those we create for ourselves, not those that were created to "keep us down" or "keep us in our place."

And yes, I have made bad choices, but then I "grew up" -- attitude, not age -- and got myself out of my mess.

Yes, bad things (cancer, for one) happen, but it is not a conspiracy.


----------



## Narshalla (Sep 11, 2008)

Jakk said:


> Mom of Four, there are a lot of people who could easily lose their car, or not afford the insurance or gas to be able to drive it if they lost their jobs. Along with the job loss goes the medical insurance. Antibiotics are not easy to obtain nor affordable without insurance. Healthy food is also out of reach. I spent three years living in my own Little Great Depression when I was first divorced. I didn't have a dime to my name and my car sat in the driveway because I couldn't afford to have it on the road. As luck would have it, I wound up very sick with a blood clot in my leg and an embolism in my lung. After 10 days in the hospital I had $70,000 worth of doctor/hospital bills that I couldnt pay because I had no health insurance. I think people today are so accustomed to the 'easy living' lifestyle that a true Depression will _seem_ much worse.


Jakk, please understand, I am not making light of your situation, my comments were addressed to ovsfarm and others who believe in such conspiracies.


----------



## sgl42 (Jan 20, 2004)

Mom_of_Four said:


> I wonder, though, if any future depression wouldn't be easier on people than the last one. Almost everyone has cars, most big cities have public transportation, we have antibiotics and better medical care. We understand more about hygiene, balanced diets, and we have more "stuff" to start out with.


cars are very expensive to operate (insurance, repairs, gas). our suburban sprawl makes it difficult to walk anywhere. I'd guess there are only 5-6 cities (NYC, Wash DC, Philly, SF, Chicago) in the US where it's possible to have a normal lifestyle without owning a car, and then only in the near-downtown area. For other cities, current public transportation in most cities might be ok for those that work directly downtown, but many jobs are spread around the periphery of cities, and current public transport doesn't easily go from one suburb to another. Building it up may happen, but will cost money.

also, many cars today can't be easily repaired by the owner, as they have computer systems, and without buying the very expensive diagnostic systems that garages have, (with all the updates) it's hard to fix them.

medical care is bankrupting the country. yes we have MRI and cat scans, but dr's have no time. my father had abdominal pains. it took 3 times going into the hospital, each time with ultrasound or MRI or cat scan, before they finally figured out it was the gall bladder. each of those diagnostic tests was thousands of dollars. how did they every diagnose gall bladder problems decades ago? I suspect the dr spent more time asking questions and probing, instead of relying on tests to do their thinking for them. I for one am not convinced we have an "advanced medical system."

I think if you peel back the layers of the onion, and ask how things really work, and whether they're really better, lots of "improvements" turn out to be political propaganda and marketing hype.

--sgl


----------



## Ann-NWIowa (Sep 28, 2002)

I think if we continue to spiral down into Depression 2.0 or whatever you call it, it will be worse than the Great Depression simply because people today are spoiled rotten. The typical young person has to have a cell phone, text messages constantly, expect wheels, $1,000 for prom, the current "in" clothing all without lifting a finger. They don't know how to wipe their noses (pierce yes, wipe no) let alone have a single survival cell in their entire bodies. Their parents and possibly their grandparents don't either. Maybe their great-grandparents remember hard times and have a clue, but most anyone younger does not and the younger make fun of g-g pa's hard time stories instead of learning from them. Now I know on this board people of all ages are survival minded, but that is not the norm. Spoiled brats have tantrums when they don't get their own way. Spoiled brats x millions and it get ugly fast. Also, in the 1930's we were still primarily a Christian nation. That is not longer true either.


----------



## Jim-mi (May 15, 2002)

Mom of four I gotta differ with you--"balanced diets"-

Yes a big bunch of us here on HT are well aware of this but what about the huge numbers whose dinning consists of
"micky dee's" only.
What happens when Depression 2.2 or such makes their supply of grease and fries and aspertain(sp) drinks not available. . . . . . . . . . and all there is, is beans or cabbage.

I don't want to be around that "surly" crowd.


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

If/when unemployment reaches or exceeds 15%, there will be a lot of homeless people. Of course, there were a lot of homeless people in the Great Depression too, mostly folks who moved from the country to the city to find work. They settled into what became known as "Hoovervilles". Well, we have a much greater population now than we did then. Can you imagine the scope and size of our "Hoovervilles" (or McCainvilles or Obamavilles or whatever they'd be called) in the Great depression 2.0? Can you imagine the length of those soup lines today? It's rather staggering to contemplate. 
Everyone should prepare, and while doing so, understand that you'll probably be called upon to feed/clothe/house those who are not prepared to feed/clothe/house themselves.


----------



## sgl42 (Jan 20, 2004)

A.T. Hagan said:


> When unemployment tops fifteen percent we will be.





thequeensblessing said:


> If/when unemployment reaches or exceeds 15%, there will be a lot of homeless people.


We're already at 11%, if you count "discouraged" workers and those working part time who'd like to be full time. Also, the gov't is "estimating" job growth with something called the "birth death model", which they won't publish their methodology for other economists to critique. In short, they're cooking the books to make it not look so bad, just like they cook the inflation statistics.



> http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/10/jobs-contract-9th-consecutive-month.html
> 
> However, if you start counting all the people that want a job but gave up, all the people with part-time jobs that want a full-time job, etc., you get a closer picture of what the unemployment rate is. That number is in the last row called U-6. It reflects how unemployment feels to the average Joe on the street. For the first time U-6 hit 11%. Note that it was 8.4% a year ago.


--sgl


----------



## sgl42 (Jan 20, 2004)

for those that like reading a bit of history, the following say that the 1873 depression is a better model than the 1929 depression:

http://www.viewfromsiliconvalley.com/id452.html

http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2008/10/03/get_your_bankin.html



> http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=477k3d8mh2wmtpc4b6h07p4hy9z83x18
> 
> The Real Great Depression
> The depression of 1929 is the wrong model for the current economic crisis
> By SCOTT REYNOLDS NELSON


--sgl


----------



## Bigkat80 (Jan 16, 2007)

mnn2501 said:


> Thanks I'll give it a try along with the anti-biotics they gave me, last time this happened I ended up in the hospital. Its only been about 3 days since I noticed it, but its already pretty advanced.
> 
> Sorry, didn't mean to disrail the thread.


Good Luck with the leg...Hope you get better.....One of the most uncomfortable conditions to my minds eye...God Speed.....


----------



## Spinner (Jul 19, 2003)

We have been building up to this depression since the creation of the federal reserve in 1913 (or was it 1914?). Subtle changes in the laws have made it inevitable. 

The Carter years is when it starting speeding up. There were laws passed that forced banks to make sub prime loans so the poor could buy houses they couldn't afford. Banks were forced under penalty of fines if they didn't cooperate. I think that one was during the Clinton years. 

Most of the damage was done by Democrat administrations, but it took several years to build up so when the damage became apparent during Republican administrations, it made it look like the Republicans did it. (FYI: I'm an independent so I have no dog in this fight. I think BOTH parties are despicable)

My parents both lived thru the great depression and told me lots of stories. My mother's family did very well. They owned their farm and grew enough produce to sell a lot so they had a good income from that plus when grandpa lost his job and had to go away to work, grandma started a trucking company and they ended up doing very well. She was one of the lucky ones. Dad's family had a farm too, but life was tougher for them, they lived off the farm with very little outside money coming in. They raised what they ate. Dad worked on a ranch and lived in the bunk house earning $15 a month. He said he felt lucky cause he got 3 meals a day on the ranch where he worked and lived. 

The people who felt the most pain were the upper middle class who became poor. The poor kept on living much as they always had. 

In some ways a new depression will be much the same. Poor people will not miss what they never had. The super rich will still be able to afford to live lavishly, especially now that they have been bailed out to the tune of $700 billion dollars. The middle class will suffer the most. Anyone who still owes on their home may end up in jeopardy of loosing it. 

In other ways it will be much different. Back then, the people were broke, but the government had money. The government started programs like the CCC to put men to work building lakes, dams, roads, and other things. This time the government is bankrupt and will not be there to help the people once countries like China stop loaning money to us. This time we will be on our own to help each other or go without. We will have foreigners buying up land at bargain prices. 

When the next depression is over, much of the country will no longer be owned by Americans. 

There are major changes happening. Hold on, it'll be a bumpy ride and it probably won't end for many years. We are moving from an American lifestyle to a global lifestyle. Remember when the gov decided that they would bus children across town to other schools so the population would be fairly mixed? This is the same thing, only on a global scale.


----------



## Ohio dreamer (Apr 6, 2006)

OrganicCat said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by "war will break out". War is constantly breaking out, what would a US recession have to do with that? I mean, war is breaking out regardless of what our economy does, especially more prevalent in areas that our economy doesn't even affect. Do you mean a MAJOR war between superpowers? Between who? Nobody is dumb enough to attack another superpower considering the advent of nuclear weapons.


The qustion posed was in the event of Depression 2.0. Therefor I responeded in the event of a world wide depression, not a US recession.

I used the example of Russia invading Georgia. That invasion was mostly due to resources (all those pipeline going through Georgia and Russia wanted to control them- this was the big reason for the invasion although there were a few other issues as well). If things get worse (worldwide depression), I see Russia invading many of the countries around them to take them over to be in control of their resources. Some of these countries are now part of the EU, some on the verge of being part of the EU. What do you think the EU will do when these countries get invaded? Some of these countries are part of NATO. What do you think NATO will do? Do you think the US will not get involved? I don't think a "superpower" will directly attack another "superpower", but honestly I don't see any real "superpowers" in the world today. But, I do think there is a *chance* that WWW3 could take place and the US may be involved in a war not related to Al-Quida (sp?) type terrorism.

Russians have a different mind set then many other people. This has been seen over 100's of years and hasn't changed. Many Russian politicians (and civilians) still see the countries that were part of the USSR as their property. If they want it or think they should have it they take it. Maybe living in Hungary I see more then the US news reports.

I hope I'm wrong, but I'm just planning as if I'm not. Better safe then sorry.


----------



## Razorback21 (May 13, 2003)

Mom_of_Four said:


> I wonder, though, if any future depression wouldn't be easier on people than the last one. Almost everyone has cars, most big cities have public transportation, we have antibiotics and better medical care. We understand more about hygiene, balanced diets, and we have more "stuff" to start out with. My grandparents were born to very poor families, and THEN entered the Great Depression. They had one outfit to wear, either no shoes or one pair of shoes, no car or public transit, and many children were already sleeping 4 to a bed and dropping out of school by 8th grade to go to work. Most children were born at home without a doctor, people never went to see a dentist, and vaccinations were non-existent.
> 
> We're at least facing whatever the future has to hold with a better start than that prior generation. I have to think that my closet full of clothes will serve me for years. Especially those smaller sizes I've saved "for when I lose weight".


I initially agreed with your comment, but upon reading it again, I must ask "Did the people in 1929 say they had a better start than in 1907". In a depression like situation, you may have knowledge of what constitutes a better diet, but the priority will be just eating in general. Medical care will be different as more people lose their health insurance, I'm just not sure how. The prior generation grew up closer to the land, in some cases without electricity and had the basic knowledge to survive. Today, we think meat comes with a Tyson label on it or is in a Golden Arches bag, and Wii would be considered a necessity. If anything, I think our generation is in for a greater shock.


----------



## booklover (Jan 22, 2007)

Razorback21 said:


> The prior generation grew up closer to the land, in some cases without electricity and had the basic knowledge to survive. Today, we think meat comes with a Tyson label on it or is in a Golden Arches bag, and Wii would be considered a necessity. If anything, I think our generation is in for a greater shock.


I agree with this. When the Great Depression began, 70% of Americans lived on farms (I just read this last night in the book I'm reading, again, about the Great Depression). The majority of people at least had enough to eat, sometimes with a little left over that they didn't think twice about sharing with their neighbors. In cities, soup lines formed, but people did eat. Amazingly, those that died from hunger, from what I was reading, were those that were too proud to take advantage of the relief efforts that were offered. However, neighbors helped neighbors and nothing was expected in return. I feel we've lost that this time around.

I also believe the difference in relief aid this time around will be simply giving food as opposed to the alphabet soup programs that required people to work for a stipend and food. The work was hard work, but people were made of tougher stuff back then, too. Today, people expect a handout. Not everyone, but I doubt people would be willing to put in 12 hours of hard work just to put food on their tables. They expect to have an SUV, McMansion, and membership to the country club for that much work.


----------



## ovsfarm (Jan 14, 2003)

I guess I didn't express myself well. I am at the forefront of personal responsibility. We live completely debt free. I certainly agree that no one held a gun to peoples' heads to make them buy bass boats and large screen tvs that they couldn't afford.

However...I also got a degree in public relations when I was young and clueless. Dh works in the tv broadcast industry. Those companies with products to sell do NOT innocently sit by and hope people will purchase their products. They actively seek to entice people to want those things. They spend millions of dollars to discover the particular psychological appeal that will tap into a particular demographic element and be most likely to influence their behavior. The modern marketing industry makes brainwashing look like child's play. I once attended a conference where a woman spoke who represented a number of internationally recognised licensed character images (cartoon characters). She gloated that with the broadening of their product lines from crib sheets to sweat shirts and lap robes, that her employers "had the public by the b*lls from the cradle to the grave". That is the attitude John and Jane Public are up against. And sadly, they have been all to willing to comply. And this is just for a stupid Tweety Bird item.

Regardless, the bottom line is that each individual is responsible for their behavior. My point in the above post was to point out that the powers that be (and I firmly believe that equals the multinational corporations these days, not the government) have the agenda of turning people into wage slaves/cash cows. It is up to each individual as to how they respond to those efforts. Unfortunately current events have shown us that the masses seem all to willing to respond as intended.

Part of dh's and my conversation dealt with where we fit into the whole picture. He brought up the example that while car manufacturers are failing, dealerships are going bust, potential buyers can't get loans to purchase and are having increasing trouble affording the gas for their huge SUVs anyway.... We just bought a new-to-us car. It is a 1992. Runs great, low mileage, great price (paid cash), and good gas mileage. We refused to let the marketers convince us that we had to have a better vehicle or that somehow our self worth was tied up in what we drive. We talked about how the whole car industry mess will probably affect us indirectly through higher taxes to bail them out and a slowed economy due to the loss of laid-off worker's participating in the local economy. Dh's main point was that since we have always lived apart from the economic mainstream, hopefully the dreadful difficulties ahead will not have so direct an impact upon us. But that is in direct opposition to where the manufacturers want us. They WANT us deeply in debt to them so they will continue to dangle fat carrots scientifically designed to appeal in front of us, hoping we (as a society) will take the bait and remain in debt bondage.


----------



## unregistered29228 (Jan 9, 2008)

Razorback21 said:


> The prior generation grew up closer to the land, in some cases without electricity and had the basic knowledge to survive. Today, we think meat comes with a Tyson label on it or is in a Golden Arches bag, and Wii would be considered a necessity. If anything, I think our generation is in for a greater shock.


I agree, the general population did have a lot more survival knowledge back then. Sometimes I forget that people in cities and the 'burbs are so insulated from the facts of life. My family's life is so much simpler than most people we know. And with whole generations growing up not knowing how to garden, hunt, fix things, preserve food, sew or even cook, it could be bad.


----------



## Ann-NWIowa (Sep 28, 2002)

This was a letter to the editor today in The Fort Dodge Messenger -- I think (hope & pray) that it is tongue in cheek but I'm really afraid many people in the U.S.A. actually believe this way. http://www.messengernews.net/page/content.detail/id/509449.html?nav=5088


----------



## OrganicCat (Sep 23, 2008)

Spinner said:


> We have been building up to this depression since the creation of the federal reserve in 1913 (or was it 1914?). Subtle changes in the laws have made it inevitable.


I agree, the federal reserve is part of the problem, but I do not agree any laws have made any substantial impact on the problem. Which ones? 



> The Carter years is when it starting speeding up.


How? Carter had to deal with the previous president's problems (like they all do) which had the economy in a runaway inflation market. He fired nearly everyone who had a hand in that and hiked the prime rate to 21.5%, the highest of ANY president ever. This had the effect of almost completely halting credit, which created a minor recession in the 80s which SHOULD have been the end of it. Anything after that is a problem someone else created, and since Clinton who you also mentioned, brought in a $1 trillion surplus and credit lending and the economy were the best they'd been in 50 years or so, I'm pretty sure it's not him. Let it be known however, presidents and congress control policy, PEOPLE control how and why they spend their money. It's too easy to blame one or two people or parties when it's actually our fault and far more complicated than "during XYZ years".



> There were laws passed that forced banks to make sub prime loans so the poor could buy houses they couldn't afford. Banks were forced under penalty of fines if they didn't cooperate. I think that one was during the Clinton years.


If you're talking about the one that ENCOURAGES federally insured banks (who are of course insured by taxpayer money) to lend equally to anyone who QUALIFIES for loans, it's about two decades before Clinton. You're looking for the CRA or Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. While it has it's critics, nobody, not even the banks will say that it is the cause of problems, because it made them a lot of money, and if it were a problem, quite obviously would have shown up a lot earlier (banks aren't stupid) than 30+ years later.



> Most of the damage was done by Democrat administrations, but it took several years to build up so when the damage became apparent during Republican administrations, it made it look like the Republicans did it. (FYI: I'm an independent so I have no dog in this fight. I think BOTH parties are despicable)


This is the third time you've brought up the Democrats as a convenient scapegoat instead of looking at the root of the problem. People borrowed too much money and banks were just as eager to please to make their own money. I fail to see how "Democrats" or "Republicans" did this this to us. I'm pretty sure we made our own bed and now we're going to sleep in it.



> In some ways a new depression will be much the same. Poor people will not miss what they never had. The super rich will still be able to afford to live lavishly, especially now that they have been bailed out to the tune of $700 billion dollars. The middle class will suffer the most. Anyone who still owes on their home may end up in jeopardy of loosing it.


Actually, it'll probably be the poor people who lose out this time, those who are living far above their actual income. Middle class, unless they borrowed to live upper class, will simply be stuck with what they have for a little while, unable to advance because nobody will be willing to let them earn more for a while or borrow to make risks to make it to the upper class.



> In other ways it will be much different. Back then, the people were broke, but the government had money. The government started programs like the CCC to put men to work building lakes, dams, roads, and other things. This time the government is bankrupt and will not be there to help the people once countries like China stop loaning money to us. This time we will be on our own to help each other or go without. We will have foreigners buying up land at bargain prices.
> 
> When the next depression is over, much of the country will no longer be owned by Americans.


A common misconception is that the government EVER had money. The government collects taxes and redistributes them through programs which are intended to keep our market stable or make it grow(which is where they get their money). The government is almost always technically bankrupt except when tax collection exceeds spending, which has happened only rarely in our history and last happened during the Clinton years ($1 trillion surplus). The government will simply print money and consider what they don't have currently "debt" when overspending, especially visible during the "bailout". They are printing money to fulfill that debt which won't hit our pockets till next year or the year after. They are still quite able to create government jobs if they so pleased.

As for "foreigners" owning our land, they always have. Just like we own bits of theirs (in companies). What's new here? Our land isn't going to magically disappear nor is their a sudden discovery of a resource which would encourage mass land buying (just because it's cheap doesn't mean it's worth anything).



> There are major changes happening. Hold on, it'll be a bumpy ride and it probably won't end for many years. We are moving from an American lifestyle to a global lifestyle. Remember when the gov decided that they would bus children across town to other schools so the population would be fairly mixed? This is the same thing, only on a global scale.


I think the opposite is happening, de-globalization. You're seeing more of a return to smaller town mindsets and lifestyles, especially with credit vanishing (one of the main forces behind globalization if not THE force). The bailout was a last ditch attempt to make the American people aware we were tied into other pieces of the world (which was not a fault of our own, due to the way banks work) and give us global awareness and "ownership", however I believe it will fail horribly, as other countries see this as it is. A bailout. And if the government is willing to print money for it's companies whenever it's in trouble, that makes the money worthless. Nationally? Maybe our money will still be worth a little to ourselves, but if the government pulls this bailout bull again, we may as well trade shiny rocks.


----------



## Guest (Oct 7, 2008)

The Democrats want to point the finger at the Republicans. The Republicans want to point the finger at the Democrats.

Whereas I believe THEY ARE BOTH EQUALLY GUILTY and if there were any justice they'd go to the wall two-by-two hand-in-hand together.

Tweedle Dee arguing with Tweedle Dum.

.....Alan.


----------



## OrganicCat (Sep 23, 2008)

A.T. Hagan said:


> The Democrats want to point the finger at the Republicans. The Republicans want to point the finger at the Democrats.
> 
> Whereas I believe THEY ARE BOTH EQUALLY GUILTY and if there were any justice they'd go to the wall two-by-two hand-in-hand together.
> 
> ...


Agreed, George Washington had it right and he didn't even have to suffer through the system we have today!


----------



## Razorback21 (May 13, 2003)

A.T. Hagan said:


> The Democrats want to point the finger at the Republicans. The Republicans want to point the finger at the Democrats.
> 
> Whereas I believe THEY ARE BOTH EQUALLY GUILTY and if there were any justice they'd go to the wall two-by-two hand-in-hand together.
> 
> ...


Amen...To all of us voters, we voted these dudes/gals in. Why do we keep voting in Democrats and Republicans? There are third parties and better yet, Independents we, as a nation, can vote in. Our system of Government doesn't require a political party to work (I'm sure the heads of the RNC and DNC will disagree with me!!!!!)

Personally, I'm sick of the "the Dems did this" or the "It is the Republicans fault". I see it on both the forums I'm on. This financial crisis, which may well lead to "Depression 2.0" is an American problem, created by Americans and it is my hope there is an American out there in a leadership position smart enough to solve it.


----------



## p1gg1e (Aug 20, 2008)

I agree 3rd party votes are for change!! 

The Government WANTS us to be in debt and feel we NEED to be but its our job not to fall for that trick. If you watched the comments from congress on the bail out bill it was both DEMS and REP ( not all) saying those poor people who cant get car loans , home loans etc. DEBT DEBT DEBT...and our Government went INTO debt with OUR money...its all crazy and bad way to run anything...

I want my part of the bail out check...I think I get 100,000 because I made bad investments


----------



## Chuck-prime (Jul 24, 2007)

sgl42 said:


> for those that like reading a bit of history, the following say that the 1873 depression is a better model than the 1929 depression:
> 
> http://www.viewfromsiliconvalley.com/id452.html
> 
> ...



This article is excellent!

But I think exuberance, and credit-retraction today also reflects 1929.


There was also a surplus of food in 1929, went away with the dust bowl very shortly thereafter, which is a hallmark of a depression (lack of food).


.


----------



## Ann-NWIowa (Sep 28, 2002)

My mother's family had money during the Depression but could often not buy goods as the stores didn't have them. For instance, apples. Kids whose dad's worked for WPA would come to school with big shiny apples but there were none in the stores. Back then mom lived in a big house in town. However, in the backyard was a shed with chickens and a cow. A lot of people in town owned cows and they hired someone to take the cows to graze along side the roadways after morning milking and then drove the cows back to town in time for evening milking. Everyone had a big garden and always had had not just due to the Depression. Grandparents had apple, cherry, pear trees, raspberries, strawberries, big garden, chickens for eggs and meat and a milk cow. Had a coal furnace, electric lights, wood cookstove that mostly burned cobs. Grandpa owned a gas station, did deliveries of fuel oil and kerosene both in town and country and delivered ice for ice boxes during the summer. I don't think there are many "town" people today so well prepared. Zoning prevents us from keeping even a few chickens ... definitely no cows allowed. I keep thinking of that old commercial "we've come a long way baby" ... yeah we've come so far we've screwed ourselves right into the ground.


----------



## Narshalla (Sep 11, 2008)

ovsfarm said:


> I guess I didn't express myself well. I am at the forefront of personal responsibility. We live completely debt free. I certainly agree that no one held a gun to peoples' heads to make them buy bass boats and large screen tvs that they couldn't afford.(snip)


Well, it does look like we are on the same page, because I agree, we all make choices, and it is usually our choices that determine the path of our life.

You said much about slick marketing campaigns, ones that would make what we're seeing in the Presidential run-up look like amateurs . . .

I agree, the level of marketing, _especially to children_, is a great deal more than most people realize. I also believe that people want to _fit in_, to belong enough to let themselves be sold on just about anything, but I doubt that the corporations want us "in debt to them." I think they would be just as happy if consumers had no debt, as long as we continue to buy, buy, buy.


----------



## moonwild (Mar 20, 2006)

The Government WANTS us to be in debt and feel we NEED to be but its our job not to fall for that trick. If you watched the comments from congress on the bail out bill it was both DEMS and REP ( not all) saying those poor people who cant get car loans , home loans etc. DEBT DEBT DEBT...and our Government went INTO debt with OUR money...its all crazy and bad way to run anything...

I want my part of the bail out check...I think I get 100,000 because I made bad investments [/QUOTE]
*
You are right!! This bail out is for credit markets to try to get back to the whole country living on credit again. It is kinda like giving drugs to a junkie so he will feel better for a little while. :flame:

http://www.nolanchart.com/article5136.html *


----------



## CountryWannabe (May 31, 2004)

hoggie said:


> Firstly, Germany as a country felt that they had been hard done by after The Great War. They had huge war debts which left the country in a terrible condition. Hitler was clever enough to turn that to his advantage - he was going to "save" the country from the evil rulers outside who were "still trying to ruin Germany". He had lots of ill feelilng already current which he could turn to his advantage.
> 
> 
> *I think that is very similar to what we are seeing now here in the US. We do have huge debts from the middle east war and the general populace is furious at the bailouts which they see as unnecessarily lining the golden nests of CEOs that made poor decisions. If I were to guess, I would say the time is very ripe for a new Hitler to rise to power. He has plenty of ill feeling to work with and there is certainly plenty of blame to point a finger at.*
> ...



*Again - I think it is correct to say that REAL information is pretty hard to come by. It is not hard for any politician to put a big spin on anything they want. The general population, by and large, lives in a world of sound bytes. S/he hears the one-liner and takes it as gospel without taking the time and effort to research it. As long as the reality shows are not disrupted I doubt that the majority would notice they had been taken over till the brainwashing was complete. Then they would feel it was only right!! As it is, many of us are considered nuts because we question actions and situations, and have been frugal and prepared for much of which life can throw at us
Mary*


----------

