Don't be surprised when soon the next recession rears its ugly head (1 Viewer)

[Lafayette]

Some people here thing the "good times" will roll on forever. Nothing could be further from the truth. The way things are going, don't be surprised when the economy trips again into recession within the next 2/3 years.


Can't happen? You think this present low Unemployment Rate is going to last forever? You are not naive?


Then have a look at this article by respected economist N. Roubini, from here:
We are due a recession in 2020 – and we will lack the tools to fight it - excerpt:

As we mark the 10th anniversary of the collapse of Lehman Brothers, there are still ongoing debates about the causes and consequences of the financial crisis, and whether the lessons needed to prepare for the next one have been absorbed. But looking ahead, the more relevant question is what actually will trigger the next global recession and crisis, and when.

The current global expansion will likely continue into next year, given that the US is running large fiscal deficits, China is pursuing loose fiscal and credit policies, and Europe remains on a recovery path. But by 2020, the conditions will be ripe for a financial crisis, followed by a global recession.


There are 10 reasons for this. First, the fiscal-stimulus policies that are currently pushing the annual US growth rate above its 2% potential are unsustainable. By 2020, the stimulus will run out, and a modest fiscal drag will pull growth from 3% to slightly below 2%.


Second ...

Read on ... !

 

[Kal'Stang]

Some people here thing the "good times" will roll on forever. Nothing could be further from the truth. The way things are going, don't be surprised when the economy trips again into recession within the next 2/3 years.


Can't happen? You think this present low Unemployment Rate is going to last forever? You are not naive?


Then have a look at this article by respected economist N. Roubini, from here:
We are due a recession in 2020 – and we will lack the tools to fight it - excerpt:





Read on ... !

Recessions happen all the time actually. List of recessions in the United States

There have been as many as 47 recessions in the United States dating back to the Articles of Confederation, and although economists and historians dispute certain 19th-century recessions,[1] the consensus view among economists and historians is that "The cyclical volatility of GNP and unemployment was greater before the Great Depression than it has been since the end of World War II."[2] Cycles in the country's agricultural production, industrial production, consumption, business investment, and the health of the banking industry contribute to these declines. U.S. recessions have increasingly affected economies on a worldwide scale, especially as countries' economies become more intertwined.

And those are just the big ones. Small ones happen also. So while they are concerning, no one really expects them to not happen.

 

[bearpoker]

Recessions happen all the time actually. List of recessions in the United States



And those are just the big ones. Small ones happen also. So while they are concerning, no one really expects them to not happen.

Trump hasn't drained the swamp, but he has drained our economic reserves by stimulating the economy to produce a bubble.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Trump hasn't drained the swamp, but he has drained our economic reserves by stimulating the economy to produce a bubble.

And here I thought the mantra was that the good economy that we have wasn't really Trumps, but Obama's. :lamo

 

[bearpoker]

And here I thought the mantra was that the good economy that we have wasn't really Trumps, but Obama's. :lamo

The results of the tax cut stimulus are Trump's. For better or worse.

 

[celticwar17]

This very discussion happening is good news though.... people are still cautious. There are many people cautious of a recession..... big bad recessions usually happen when the majority of people aren't cautious, and everything seems good...

I still see a lot of restraint on the market. People are still scared of the 08 recession.

 

[Lafayette]

So while they are concerning, no one really expects them to not happen.

The issue is "What to do about them?". Not that they happen or how often.

And the Replicants have showed amply well that they don't give a damn about those who suffer the most from recessions, namely those who live typically below the 30/35K of annual revenue.

You don't seem to have a sense of history, so permit me to refresh your memory of what happened after the Great Recession (brought about by a REPLICANT POTUS):
*Upon entering office Obama spiked the skyrocketing unemployment rate at 10% with the 2009 ARRA-bill spending of $830B.
*Upon winning the majority of theHofR in the 2010 midterms, the Replicants refused all further spending claiming that it would "break the bank" and the budget would skyrocket. They WANTED unemployment to stay high in order to defeat Obama in 2011 elections. (Didn't work out that way, did it?)
*The result was that American Employment-to-population Ratio stagnated for FOUR LONG YEARS - from 2010 to 2014! - and no new jobs were created. See that history here from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

People like you don't like Economic History. It's too complicated.

But our economic history shows clearly what the Replicant Party is capable of doing for one and only one reason:
TOO KEEP POWER TO RUN THE COUNTRY THAT BEST SUITS THE RICH AND SUPER-RICH

Put that in your pipe and smoke it ... !

 

[JoanDavis]

Recessions happen all the time actually. List of recessions in the United States



And those are just the big ones. Small ones happen also. So while they are concerning, no one really expects them to not happen.

Oh look - the last great recession started December 2007 and finished June 2009.

Hmmm who was president when it started - dubya, and who was the president to get the country out of the recession? Yep President Obama.

But the republicans keep spreading the BS that President Obama was responsible for the great recession. To this day they STILL claim President Obama was responsible and trump should get the credit for the booming economy right now.

Just watch trump and the republicans blame the democrats when they cause the next great recession.

Dow Jones is down again today. And trump has tripled the deficit in just under 2 years!!!

 

[JoanDavis]

The issue is "What to do about them?". Not that they happen or how often.

And the Replicants have showed amply well that they don't give a damn about those who suffer the most from recessions, namely those who live typically below the 30/35K of annual revenue.

You don't seem to have a sense of history, so permit me to refresh your memory of what happened after the Great Recession (brought about by a REPLICANT POTUS):
*Upon entering office Obama spiked the skyrocketing unemployment rate at 10% with the 2009 ARRA-bill spending of $830B.
*Upon winning the majority of theHofR in the 2010 midterms, the Replicants refused all further spending claiming that it would "break the bank" and the budget would skyrocket. They WANTED unemployment to stay high in order to defeat Obama in 2011 elections. (Didn't work out that way, did it?)
*The result was that American Employment-to-population Ratio stagnated for FOUR LONG YEARS - from 2010 to 2014! - and no new jobs were created. See that history here from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

People like you don't like Economic History. It's too complicated.

But our economic history shows clearly what the Replicant Party is capable of doing for one and only one reason:
TOO KEEP POWER TO RUN THE COUNTRY THAT BEST SUITS THE RICH AND SUPER-RICH

Put that in your pipe and smoke it ... !

Excellent analysis. But the trumpeteers will never accept these FACTS.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Oh look - the last great recession started December 2007 and finished June 2009.

Hmmm who was president when it started - dubya, and who was the president to get the country out of the recession? Yep President Obama.

But the republicans keep spreading the BS that President Obama was responsible for the great recession. To this day they STILL claim President Obama was responsible and trump should get the credit for the booming economy right now.

Just watch trump and the republicans blame the democrats when they cause the next great recession.

Dow Jones is down again today. And trump has tripled the deficit in just under 2 years!!!

I've never heard of anyone blaming Obama for the Great Recession. Considering it started under Bush that would just be silly. Now, I HAVE heard that Obama's policies, while promoting growth of the economy, was weak and as a result the recession lasted longer than it should have. But I've never heard anyone blame Obama for it actually starting. Got a source for that claim?

 

[Amelia]

And here I thought the mantra was that the good economy that we have wasn't really Trumps, but Obama's. :lamo

Obama handed Trump a solid economy, which sailed smoothly through 2017.

Then in 2018 Trump took the economy by the short hairs and jerked it around, so yeah, now it's his.

 

[iguanaman]

And here I thought the mantra was that the good economy that we have wasn't really Trumps, but Obama's. :lamo

Who else would it be? Economies don't turn on a dime and Trumps multi trillion dollar tax cut is a bust. What has Trump done?

 

[Kal'Stang]

The issue is "What to do about them?". Not that they happen or how often.

And the Replicants have showed amply well that they don't give a damn about those who suffer the most from recessions, namely those who live typically below the 30/35K of annual revenue.

You don't seem to have a sense of history, so permit me to refresh your memory of what happened after the Great Recession (brought about by a REPLICANT POTUS):
*Upon entering office Obama spiked the skyrocketing unemployment rate at 10% with the 2009 ARRA-bill spending of $830B.
*Upon winning the majority of theHofR in the 2010 midterms, the Replicants refused all further spending claiming that it would "break the bank" and the budget would skyrocket. They WANTED unemployment to stay high in order to defeat Obama in 2011 elections. (Didn't work out that way, did it?)
*The result was that American Employment-to-population Ratio stagnated for FOUR LONG YEARS - from 2010 to 2014! - and no new jobs were created. See that history here from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

People like you don't like Economic History. It's too complicated.

But our economic history shows clearly what the Replicant Party is capable of doing for one and only one reason:
TOO KEEP POWER TO RUN THE COUNTRY THAT BEST SUITS THE RICH AND SUPER-RICH

Put that in your pipe and smoke it ... !

Only one problem with your analysis. While it is correct that it started under Bush he was only partially responsible. Republicans (like John McCain) actually tried to reign in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. But Democrats resisted it. Bush is responsible in that he started two wars and lowered taxes. But Democrats are responsible in that they resisted regulating the two biggest contributors to the crisis when it might have done some good back between 2002-2004 or so I think it was. Maxine Waters even stated quite explicitly, "We do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac".



This pipe is very fine, thank you.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Obama handed Trump a solid economy, which sailed smoothly through 2017.

Then in 2018 Trump took the economy by the short hairs and jerked it around, so yeah, now it's his.

I'll remember you said this.

 

[Lafayette]

But Democrats are responsible in that they resisted regulating the two biggest contributors to the crisis when it might have done some good back between 2002-2004 or so I think it was.

What was going on in both the institutions you mention was over a multitude of different governments, both Dems and Replicants.

It was called "get rich quick and get out" for those who ran those agencies. They are long since gone. Some you will find on the links in southern Florida. By in large, rather dull people who were "in the right place at the right time". But, the entire lower-end of supporting easy purchases of housing became a game of "who gets in and out first".

Aside from all that, the issue remains: How do we allow those below the Poverty Threshold to own their own premises? By doubling the Minimum Wage, that's how. What will happen? Well, certainly not the end of "life as we know it". Some services/products will get more expensive, but nothing outa-sight.

And those earning less than $30K a year will learn to live decently. We take the money for the initiative OUT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BUDGET. And stop wasting it in "Toys for our boys".

There is no Major Conflict for which the US should be spending about half its Discretionary Budget on the DoD. (See here.) None. Zip. Nada!

It would be better spent elsewhere - matching mortgages for houses that puts people to work. Sending people (retraining some) with qualifications that the job-market is looking for in a post-secondary education that does not cost an arm-and-a-leg.

From here: National Center for Education Statistics

College and University Education

Enrollment

The number of students projected to attend American colleges and universities in fall 2018 is 19.9 million, which is higher than the enrollment of 15.3 million students in fall 2000, but lower than the enrollment peak of 21.0 million in fall 2010 (source). Total enrollment is expected to increase between fall 2018 and fall 2027 to 20.5 million.

Just presume for a moment that all those kids (say 20 million) go to a state-school the cost of which is estimated at around $12K a school-year (9 months)*.

Still, the total annual outlay would be less than $240B a year for tuition. (Room&board is extra.) Or about 20% of the total Discretionary Budget.

The US government cannot afford that sum for making an investment in our youth?

Ya gotta be kidding ...

*And if the parents insist upon a private-school, allow them to accept the $12K per child and they can send their kids to wherever they damn well please. (It's silly because the school does NOT decide the person. It is the personal ability for achievement that decides a persons future - and income.)

 

[Kal'Stang]

What was going on in both the institutions you mention was over a multitude of different governments, both Dems and Replicants.

It was called "get rich quick and get out" for those who ran those agencies. They are long since gone. Some you will find on the links in southern Florida. By in large, rather dull people who were "in the right place at the right time". But, the entire lower-end of supporting easy purchases of housing became a game of "who gets in and out first".

Aside from all that, the issue remains: How do we allow those below the Poverty Threshold to own their own premises? By doubling the Minimum Wage, that's how. What will happen? Well, certainly not the end of "life as we know it". Some services/products will get more expensive, but nothing outa-sight.

And those earning less than $30K a year will learn to live decently. We take the money for the initiative OUT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BUDGET. And stop wasting it in "Toys for our boys".

There is no Major Conflict for which the US should be spending about half its Discretionary Budget on the DoD. (See here.) None. Zip. Nada!

It would be better spent elsewhere - matching mortgages for houses that puts people to work. Sending people (retraining some) with qualifications that the job-market is looking for in a post-secondary education that does not cost an arm-and-a-leg.

From here: National Center for Education Statistics


Just presume for a moment that all those kids (say 20 million) go to a state-school the cost of which is estimated at around $12K a school-year (9 months)*.

Still, the total annual outlay would be less than $240B a year for tuition. (Room&board is extra.) Or about 20% of the total Discretionary Budget.

The US government cannot afford that sum for making an investment in our youth?

Ya gotta be kidding ...

*And if the parents insist upon a private-school, allow them to accept the $12K per child and they can send their kids to wherever they damn well please. (It's silly because the school does NOT decide the person. It is the personal ability for achievement that decides a persons future - and income.)

You're wrong on that bold part. If simply raising the minimum wage was good enough then we should have only had to raise it once. Yet it has been raised multiple times because the same thing happens over and over...prices eventually get "outta-sight". It's a never ending cycle. Raising the minimum wage, prices go up. Eventually those prices get outta range and we have the same problems occurring. More needs to be done than simply raising minimum wage. Cutting costs down would help. Part of those costs happen due to regulations, usually excessive regulations. So getting rid of unnecessary regulations would help.

 

[Kushinator]

And here I thought the mantra was that the good economy that we have wasn't really Trumps, but Obama's. :lamo

You totally ignored the statement you decided to quote.

Let me help you:

Trump hasn't drained the swamp, but he has drained our economic reserves by stimulating the economy to produce a bubble.

Here, this poster is obviously highlighting the fact that a GOP controlled government has grown deficits for the past two years, even though the unemployment rate is at historic lows. Obama has nothing to do with his point.

 

[Kushinator]

Only one problem with your analysis. While it is correct that it started under Bush he was only partially responsible. Republicans (like John McCain) actually tried to reign in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. But Democrats resisted it. Bush is responsible in that he started two wars and lowered taxes. But Democrats are responsible in that they resisted regulating the two biggest contributors to the crisis when it might have done some good back between 2002-2004 or so I think it was. Maxine Waters even stated quite explicitly, "We do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac".

GSE's didn't cause the financial crisis or the Great Recession. Is it your contention that GSE's drove housing bubbles in England, Iceland, Ireland, Germany, Netherlands, etc...? :lol:

 

[bearpoker]

You totally ignored the statement you decided to quote.

Let me help you:



Here, this poster is obviously highlighting the fact that a GOP controlled government has grown deficits for the past two years, even though the unemployment rate is at historic lows. Obama has nothing to do with his point.

Not that that I mind particularly, but you got my responses mixed up. My reply to Kal'Stang was:

The results of the tax cut stimulus are Trump's. For better or worse.

 

[Kushinator]

Not that that I mind particularly, but you got my responses mixed up. My reply to Kal'Stang was:

I was helping Kal understand your point.

 

[Lafayette]

WELCOME TO THE "ECONOMICS FORUM"!

You're wrong on that bold part. If simply raising the minimum wage was good enough then we should have only had to raise it once. Yet it has been raised multiple times because the same thing happens over and over...prices eventually get "outta-sight".

That's your personal opinion. And you are NO ECONOMIST! Prices rise for the general-public but so do incomes of the poorest! And so, what do the poorest actually do? For people who have nothing, most of the rise in the Minimum Wage goes directly into Demand for goods and services - thus expanding the economy! (Duhhhhh...)

Furthermore, there is a psychological impact that better-living enhances. When one is living "well-enough" one gets very, very attached psychologically to that condition. Therefore, they do what is necessary to keep it. Which, in a dynamic economy, means moving around to where jobs are created and leaving wherever they are no longer necessary. Or going back, at whatever age, to schooling to adapt to the needs of the job-marketplace.

Those are the key characteristics of the New Information Age that is upon us. Mark my words.

MY POINT

Factually what happens is as I said, "With the money necessary to live well, people below the Poverty Threshold move "upmarket" into better housing and spend more on good food". (And if we raised taxes on cigarettes, they'd likely live longer as well.)

This has already been proven statistically time and time again. (Unfortunately, mostly in Europe - because the US prefers to remain blind to the factual evidence!)

It's a never ending cycle. Raising the minimum wage, prices go up. Eventually those prices get outta range and we have the same problems occurring. More needs to be done than simply raising minimum wage. Cutting costs down would help. Part of those costs happen due to regulations, usually excessive regulations. So getting rid of unnecessary regulations would help.

Yes, it is IS a never ending cycle in the US BECAUSE THE COUNTRY REFUSES TO DO WHAT IS NECESSARY AND THAT IS INCREASE THE MINIMUM WAGE! (This prevailing notion of "state rights" is beginning to show how much of a dead-anchor it is to any real progress in America.)

And people like you won't understand that eventuality until Great-Recession-Two happens. Believe me, wait two more years, it is just around the corner*.

Only this time around the Replicants have proven how lowering unemployment is not good enough to maintain low employment. We are in the midst of an age-change (and have been since the Great Recession of 2008). From that of the Industrial Age we are moving into the Information Age. But this advance has certain conditions.

The foremost of which is a Tertiary Education that teaches people how to THINK and employ ADVANCED PROCESSES to manage adequately their duties in large companies. We do NOT LEARN those processes in high-school (or penitentiaries) because they require an ADVANCED LEVEL OF KNOWLEDGE-TEACHING.

One that is taught in post-secondary educational institutions (vocational, associate, bachelor, or doctorate degree levels), which is why (as in High School) it must be free, gratis and for nothing ... !

*That way, in two years, when we elect ONCE AGAIN a Dem to replace an incompetent Replicant PotUS, you can blame the Dem for not being able to kick-start the economy or spending too much money. Or whatever nonsense the RabidRight ALWAYS SAY in the same situation.

 

[Lafayette]

And here I thought the mantra was that the good economy that we have wasn't really Trumps, but Obama's.

But it's true.

What do you see in this info-graphic from the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Employment-to-population Ratio here:
*Note that the ratio declined precipitously from May 2008 to September 2009 - where it reached "bottom" at 58.3%. This resulted from Obama's ARRA-bill (passed in February 2008, a month after Obama had been sworn in!
*Note also that Obama had requested further stimulus-spending from an HofR ("owned" by the Replicants who were in the majority).
*Note how, despite Obama's request for futher stimulus, the HofR continued to refuse. They wanted HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT until the presidential election in 2011. That ploy didn't work did it?
*But neither did the economy generate any new jobs! So American families out of work paid the price of Replicant obstinacy!
*It was later when (all by itself) in January of 2014 that the economy started creating New Jobs all by itself.
*And the Employment-to-population Ratio has yet to get back to the 63% range prior to its drastic drop in March of 2008.
*It is presently on a slow but positive up-line at 60.6% - and we have supposedly only 3.9% unemployment.
*But the country is well below its last higher figure achieved in before 2008 of 63%!

And, believe me, given the fact that we are changing ages from the Industrial to the Information Age, it is going to take a long, long while for the E-to-p Ratio to get back up to its historic highs.

Because our Economic Dynamic has changed profoundly since. More jobs being created are requiring higher educational qualifications. And where are we finding more and more of that talent?

Abroad! And why?

Because it costs less to educate them abroad than our own children in the US ... !