Employment has been too high, as well as economic activity, to fit the definition

now let’s look at “economic activity”

this is a smoke screen of course, when instruments themselves are inflating their own value and selling to others at that inflated value creating more debt based on nothing, that’s economic activity that is indicative of a depression, it’s not economic activity that argues against the term “depression”

so let’s look at that

from the time economic instruments were re-eavaluating their own value that would probably be the moment we started to regress

obviously that regression would take some time to reach “borrowing more then we make” but from the time we “borrowed more then we make” any kind of activity is a smoke screen

when you are borrowing against yourself to keep your job that’s not a job

My business will probably not last through this season, we’ve gone from 5 full time salesmen to one part time salesmen, our staff has gone from 12 crues to 2, we’ve gone from a 3 week wait for installs to doing it the next day

we’ve gone from excellant credit to cod.

now, I have enough saved to invest in a something else however that something else might not pay it’s own bills

I’ll still have a job by labor standars but by reality I do not have a job at all

now if someone else is paying those bills and keeping me working, that’s the same thing only someone besides me is carrying that note

now let’s look at that statement, “employment has been too high”

employment has been going down obviously, however if you want to look at the number of good jobs that turned into poverty wage jobs I think you’ll see that real employment has been far lower then even the dismal numbers indicate

this has been a depression for at least two years, what people are seeing now is the boil not the disease

Posted on Wednesday, February 01, 2006 9:04:26 AM by AZRepublican

The Commerce Department reported Monday that the nation’s savings rate was a negative number last year.

that’s the first time that happened since the “great” depression

“great”…people misunderstand that depression, that was “the great”, there have been others, when a person mentions “depression” they compare it to “the great” and conclude, ” we are therefore not in a depression”

once I point out “the great” is the extreme and there are levels of depression of course everyone realizes the folly of their reasoning.

now let’s look at this again;

The Commerce Department reported Monday that the nation’s savings rate was a negative number last year.

that’s the threshold, we are in the depression from that time forward however we don’t know it, we’re living on borrowed time so to speak

from that time forward jobs will be lost, investments will be reduced, assets will devalue as people sell those assets to pay their bills

we’ve been in a depression for at least two years and probably closer to three, we’ve been in recession for five;

real wages have gone down and depressed for at least two years, real investments in this country have gone down and depressed for at least two years, real assets have gone down and depressed for at least two years, real savings have gone down and depressed for at least two years

this has been a depression for at least two years, what people are seeing now is the boil not the desease

by every method of definition this has been a depression for some time, they don’t want to say it because that is what they wrought

If this thing tips into a depression, and there are true, reasonable chances that it will–then we should remember what the senate has done here, and hold them accountable.

Which raises the obvious question: shouldn’t Obama have made a much bigger plan, say $1.3 trillion, his opening gambit? If he had, he could have conceded to the centrists by cutting it to $1.2 trillion, and still have had a plan with a good chance of really controlling this slump. Instead he made preemptive concessions, only to find the centrists demanding another pound of flesh as proof of their centrist power.

Obama might well say that he won the presidency by making preemptive concessions in his policies, thus giving his GOP opponents a smaller target to shoot at. This might work in elections (might)–but Obama may have made a critical mistake here, as Krugman suggests. If this thing turns out to be as bad as Galbraith and Krugman say it is, then we should look back at this senate performance and take some damn scalps.

this is known as “wolf in sheeps clothing”

One needs strong shock treatment. And a little waste and inefficiency might actually create more employment. That’s not bad.

what will be bad if the initiative is far too small, a very important factor for long term recovery is going to be confidence, if the first recovery plan fails then the next one is going to have a long way to go for the confidence that’s needed in an economy

here’s an important factoid most people do not know;

all money represents, is confidence

that’s all it is