tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-70472593016002552032012-01-20T11:14:55.654-05:00Keeping an eye of the factors that will determine whether the U.S. economy might slip into a depressionJack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.comBlogger831100tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-35722810937036887632012-01-20T11:14:00.001-05:002012-01-20T11:14:55.699-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none"> <DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none"> <DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none"> <DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none"> <DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>I am endeavoring to track the current media mania of attempting to draw parallels between the current economic situation and the Great Depression. I am doing this by using <A href="http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&amp;sourceid=chrome&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;q=%22the+great+depression%22#q=%22the+great+depression%22&amp;hl=en&amp;safe=off&amp;biw=1366&amp;bih=681&amp;tbs=sbd:1,qdr:d&amp;tbm=nws&amp;prmd=ivnsb&amp;ei=vPfKTZyxKoOx0QG39OXsBw&amp;start=120&amp;sa=N&amp;bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&amp;fp=eb2fb4208bc999a7">Google News</A> to count the total number of "news" references to the phrase "The Great Depression" in the previous 24 hours. I have been doing this for over three years now.</DIV> <UL> <LI>1/10/2009: 411 hits <LI>1/30/2009: 319 hits <LI>2/6/2009: 308 hits <LI>2/25/2009: 389 hits <LI>3/10/2009: 306 hits <LI>3/24/2009: 285 hits <LI>4/9/2009: 93 hits <LI>4/28/2009: 184 hits <LI>4/30/2009: 195 hits <LI>5/7/2009: 184 hits <LI>5/21/2009: 167 hits <LI>6/5/2009: 99 hits <LI>7/8/2009: 170 hits <LI>7/22/2009: 177 hits <LI>7/29/2009: 189 hits <LI>8/14/2009: 169 hits <LI>8/20/2009: 168 hits <LI>8/26/2009: 168 hits <LI>9/2/2009: 147 hits <LI>10/13/2009: 158 hits <LI>10/22/2009: 208 hits <LI>10/29/2009: 246 hits <LI>11/3/2009: 176 hits <LI>11/17/2009: 133 hits <LI>11/24/2009: 160 hits <LI>12/4/2009: 205 hits <LI>12/10/2009: 158 hits <LI>12/23/2009: 156 hits <LI>12/30/2009: 164 hits <LI>1/12/2010: 151 hits <LI>1/21/2010: 211 hits <LI>2/11/2010: 175 hits <LI>2/24/2010: 193 hits <LI>3/5/2010: 169 hits <LI>3/19/2010: 147 hits <LI>4/2/2010: 137 hits <LI>4/7/2010: 146 hits <LI>4/22/2010: 185 hits <LI>4/29/2010: 246 hits <LI>6/4/2010: 146 hits <LI>6/18/2010: 139 hits <LI>7/13/2010: 183 hits <LI>7/28/2010: 162 hits <LI>8/17/2010: 149 hits <LI>8/27/2010: 190 hits <LI>9/14/2010: 196 hits <LI>9/29/2010: 233 hits <LI>11/4/2010: 276 hits <LI>1/19/2011: 112 hits <LI>3/1/2011: 119 hits <LI>3/9/2011: 144 hits <LI>5/11/2011: 120 hits <LI>10/22/2011: 153 hits <LI>11/1/2011: 149 hits <LI>11/30/2011: 142 hits <LI>1/20/2012: 107 hits</LI></UL> <DIV>Although the "mania" appears to have subsided somewhat, or at least has stabilized, the phrase "since the Great Depression" clearly resonates, at least among journalists.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>One possibility for the stabilization is that the term resonates enough that the media is more than happy to cling to a term that almost assures that readers will pay attention. How long will it continue to "resonate"? Maybe until the overall economy and employment are reliably rising month after month for at least six months, with unemployment declining reliably as well, and a significant portion of the eight million people put out of work by the recession are back to work. Obviously we are not there yet. As long as there is a reportable story about the economic hardships of this recession, the term will continue to be used.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>A fair amount of the usage at this stage is not comparison directly to The Great Depression, but simply using The Great Depression as a sort of bookend as in "since the Great Depression." Still, the media is clearly getting a lot of mileage out of the term even if they are not adding much in the way of useful information or enlightenment.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>My current belief is that the media mania over "The Great Depression" will continue until the current recovery from the recession has advanced to the point where a monthly gain of employment is no longer a calming surprise and once again becomes taken for granted. We may need to see a decline of a million or more in unemployment and an even greater gain in employment before that happens. I do not expect that to occur in the near future. It could be a year or more, especially since initial unemployment claims remain firmly elevated above typical recessionary levels.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Personally, I believe that even though we are into a modest recovery overall for the economy, on the labor front we are in a <STRONG>mini-depression</STRONG>. Even though employment will begin to recover and resume growth soon, the bulk of the eight million people who lost jobs due to the recession will remain jobless for several years to come. It may take five to ten years before the bulk of those people are finally back in mainstream employment. We will have a split economy, with 80% of the people doing reasonably well and 15% struggling with some combination of unemployment and under-employment is their household, including adult children, and that is besides the typical 5% or so who are typically living in poverty or near poverty even in a booming economy.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-3572281093703688763?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-30333559186152499402011-11-30T18:12:00.001-05:002011-11-30T18:12:35.632-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none"> <DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none"> <DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none"> <DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>I am endeavoring to track the current media mania of attempting to draw parallels between the current economic situation and the Great Depression. I am doing this by using <A href="http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&amp;sourceid=chrome&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;q=%22the+great+depression%22#q=%22the+great+depression%22&amp;hl=en&amp;safe=off&amp;biw=1366&amp;bih=681&amp;tbs=sbd:1,qdr:d&amp;tbm=nws&amp;prmd=ivnsb&amp;ei=vPfKTZyxKoOx0QG39OXsBw&amp;start=120&amp;sa=N&amp;bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&amp;fp=eb2fb4208bc999a7">Google News</A> to count the total number of "news" references to the phrase "The Great Depression" in the previous 24 hours. I have been doing this for over two years now.</DIV> <UL> <LI>1/10/2009: 411 hits <LI>1/30/2009: 319 hits <LI>2/6/2009: 308 hits <LI>2/25/2009: 389 hits <LI>3/10/2009: 306 hits <LI>3/24/2009: 285 hits <LI>4/9/2009: 93 hits <LI>4/28/2009: 184 hits <LI>4/30/2009: 195 hits <LI>5/7/2009: 184 hits <LI>5/21/2009: 167 hits <LI>6/5/2009: 99 hits <LI>7/8/2009: 170 hits <LI>7/22/2009: 177 hits <LI>7/29/2009: 189 hits <LI>8/14/2009: 169 hits <LI>8/20/2009: 168 hits <LI>8/26/2009: 168 hits <LI>9/2/2009: 147 hits <LI>10/13/2009: 158 hits <LI>10/22/2009: 208 hits <LI>10/29/2009: 246 hits <LI>11/3/2009: 176 hits <LI>11/17/2009: 133 hits <LI>11/24/2009: 160 hits <LI>12/4/2009: 205 hits <LI>12/10/2009: 158 hits <LI>12/23/2009: 156 hits <LI>12/30/2009: 164 hits <LI>1/12/2010: 151 hits <LI>1/21/2010: 211 hits <LI>2/11/2010: 175 hits <LI>2/24/2010: 193 hits <LI>3/5/2010: 169 hits <LI>3/19/2010: 147 hits <LI>4/2/2010: 137 hits <LI>4/7/2010: 146 hits <LI>4/22/2010: 185 hits <LI>4/29/2010: 246 hits <LI>6/4/2010: 146 hits <LI>6/18/2010: 139 hits <LI>7/13/2010: 183 hits <LI>7/28/2010: 162 hits <LI>8/17/2010: 149 hits <LI>8/27/2010: 190 hits <LI>9/14/2010: 196 hits <LI>9/29/2010: 233 hits <LI>11/4/2010: 276 hits <LI>1/19/2011: 112 hits <LI>3/1/2011: 119 hits <LI>3/9/2011: 144 hits <LI>5/11/2011: 120 hits <LI>10/22/2011: 153 hits <LI>11/1/2011: 149 hits <LI>11/30/2011: 142 hits</LI></UL> <DIV>Although the "mania" appears to have subsided somewhat, or at least has stabilized, the phrase "since the Great Depression" clearly resonates, at least among journalists.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>One possibility for the stabilization is that the term resonates enough that the media is more than happy to cling to a term that almost assures that readers will pay attention. How long will it continue to "resonate"? Maybe until the overall economy and employment are reliably rising month after month for at least six months, with unemployment declining reliably as well, and a significant portion of the eight million people put out of work by the recession are back to work. Obviously we are not there yet. As long as there is a reportable story about the economic hardships of this recession, the term will continue to be used.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>A fair amount of the usage at this stage is not comparison directly to The Great Depression, but simply using The Great Depression as a sort of bookend as in "since the Great Depression." Still, the media is clearly getting a lot of mileage out of the term even if they are not adding much in the way of useful information or enlightenment.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>My current belief is that the media mania over "The Great Depression" will continue until the current recovery from the recession has advanced to the point where a monthly gain of employment is no longer a calming surprise and once again becomes taken for granted. We may need to see a decline of a million or more in unemployment and an even greater gain in employment before that happens. I do not expect that to occur in the near future. It could be a year or more, especially since initial unemployment claims remain firmly elevated above typical recessionary levels.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Personally, I believe that even though we are into a modest recovery overall for the economy, on the labor front we are in a <STRONG>mini-depression</STRONG>. Even though employment will begin to recover and resume growth soon, the bulk of the eight million people who lost jobs due to the recession will remain jobless for several years to come. It may take five to ten years before the bulk of those people are finally back in mainstream employment. We will have a split economy, with 80% of the people doing reasonably well and 15% struggling with some combination of unemployment and under-employment is their household, including adult children, and that is besides the typical 5% or so who are typically living in poverty or near poverty even in a booming economy.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-3033355918615249940?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-1669756370657240562011-11-01T17:21:00.001-04:002011-11-01T17:21:54.295-04:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none"> <DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none"> <DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>I am endeavoring to track the current media mania of attempting to draw parallels between the current economic situation and the Great Depression. I am doing this by using <A href="http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&amp;sourceid=chrome&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;q=%22the+great+depression%22#q=%22the+great+depression%22&amp;hl=en&amp;safe=off&amp;biw=1366&amp;bih=681&amp;tbs=sbd:1,qdr:d&amp;tbm=nws&amp;prmd=ivnsb&amp;ei=vPfKTZyxKoOx0QG39OXsBw&amp;start=120&amp;sa=N&amp;bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&amp;fp=eb2fb4208bc999a7">Google News</A> to count the total number of "news" references to the phrase "The Great Depression" in the previous 24 hours. I have been doing this for over two years now.</DIV> <UL> <LI>1/10/2009: 411 hits <LI>1/30/2009: 319 hits <LI>2/6/2009: 308 hits <LI>2/25/2009: 389 hits <LI>3/10/2009: 306 hits <LI>3/24/2009: 285 hits <LI>4/9/2009: 93 hits <LI>4/28/2009: 184 hits <LI>4/30/2009: 195 hits <LI>5/7/2009: 184 hits <LI>5/21/2009: 167 hits <LI>6/5/2009: 99 hits <LI>7/8/2009: 170 hits <LI>7/22/2009: 177 hits <LI>7/29/2009: 189 hits <LI>8/14/2009: 169 hits <LI>8/20/2009: 168 hits <LI>8/26/2009: 168 hits <LI>9/2/2009: 147 hits <LI>10/13/2009: 158 hits <LI>10/22/2009: 208 hits <LI>10/29/2009: 246 hits <LI>11/3/2009: 176 hits <LI>11/17/2009: 133 hits <LI>11/24/2009: 160 hits <LI>12/4/2009: 205 hits <LI>12/10/2009: 158 hits <LI>12/23/2009: 156 hits <LI>12/30/2009: 164 hits <LI>1/12/2010: 151 hits <LI>1/21/2010: 211 hits <LI>2/11/2010: 175 hits <LI>2/24/2010: 193 hits <LI>3/5/2010: 169 hits <LI>3/19/2010: 147 hits <LI>4/2/2010: 137 hits <LI>4/7/2010: 146 hits <LI>4/22/2010: 185 hits <LI>4/29/2010: 246 hits <LI>6/4/2010: 146 hits <LI>6/18/2010: 139 hits <LI>7/13/2010: 183 hits <LI>7/28/2010: 162 hits <LI>8/17/2010: 149 hits <LI>8/27/2010: 190 hits <LI>9/14/2010: 196 hits <LI>9/29/2010: 233 hits <LI>11/4/2010: 276 hits <LI>1/19/2011: 112 hits <LI>3/1/2011: 119 hits <LI>3/9/2011: 144 hits <LI>5/11/2011: 120 hits <LI>10/22/2011: 153 hits <LI>11/1/2011: 149 hits</LI></UL> <DIV>Although the "mania" appears to have subsided somewhat, or at least has stabilized, the phrase "since the Great Depression" clearly resonates, at least among journalists.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>One possibility for the stabilization is that the term resonates enough that the media is more than happy to cling to a term that almost assures that readers will pay attention. How long will it continue to "resonate"? Maybe until the overall economy and employment are reliably rising month after month for at least six months, with unemployment declining reliably as well, and a significant portion of the eight million people put out of work by the recession are back to work. Obviously we are not there yet. As long as there is a reportable story about the economic hardships of this recession, the term will continue to be used.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>A fair amount of the usage at this stage is not comparison directly to The Great Depression, but simply using The Great Depression as a sort of bookend as in "since the Great Depression." Still, the media is clearly getting a lot of mileage out of the term even if they are not adding much in the way of useful information or enlightenment.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>My current belief is that the media mania over "The Great Depression" will continue until the current recovery from the recession has advanced to the point where a monthly gain of employment is no longer a calming surprise and once again becomes taken for granted. We may need to see a decline of a million or more in unemployment and an even greater gain in employment before that happens. I do not expect that to occur in the near future. It could be a year or more, especially since initial unemployment claims remain firmly elevated above typical recessionary levels.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Personally, I believe that even though we are into a modest recovery overall for the economy, on the labor front we are in a <STRONG>mini-depression</STRONG>. Even though employment will begin to recover and resume growth soon, the bulk of the eight million people who lost jobs due to the recession will remain jobless for several years to come. It may take five to ten years before the bulk of those people are finally back in mainstream employment. We will have a split economy, with 80% of the people doing reasonably well and 15% struggling with some combination of unemployment and under-employment is their household, including adult children, and that is besides the typical 5% or so who are typically living in poverty or near poverty even in a booming economy.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-166975637065724056?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-45161017817441411032011-10-22T09:01:00.001-04:002011-10-22T09:01:57.312-04:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none"> <DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>I am endeavoring to track the current media mania of attempting to draw parallels between the current economic situation and the Great Depression. I am doing this by using <A href="http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&amp;sourceid=chrome&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;q=%22the+great+depression%22#q=%22the+great+depression%22&amp;hl=en&amp;safe=off&amp;biw=1366&amp;bih=681&amp;tbs=sbd:1,qdr:d&amp;tbm=nws&amp;prmd=ivnsb&amp;ei=vPfKTZyxKoOx0QG39OXsBw&amp;start=120&amp;sa=N&amp;bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&amp;fp=eb2fb4208bc999a7">Google News</A> to count the total number of "news" references to the phrase "The Great Depression" in the previous 24 hours. I have been doing this for over two years now.</DIV> <UL> <LI>1/10/2009: 411 hits <LI>1/30/2009: 319 hits <LI>2/6/2009: 308 hits <LI>2/25/2009: 389 hits <LI>3/10/2009: 306 hits <LI>3/24/2009: 285 hits <LI>4/9/2009: 93 hits <LI>4/28/2009: 184 hits <LI>4/30/2009: 195 hits <LI>5/7/2009: 184 hits <LI>5/21/2009: 167 hits <LI>6/5/2009: 99 hits <LI>7/8/2009: 170 hits <LI>7/22/2009: 177 hits <LI>7/29/2009: 189 hits <LI>8/14/2009: 169 hits <LI>8/20/2009: 168 hits <LI>8/26/2009: 168 hits <LI>9/2/2009: 147 hits <LI>10/13/2009: 158 hits <LI>10/22/2009: 208 hits <LI>10/29/2009: 246 hits <LI>11/3/2009: 176 hits <LI>11/17/2009: 133 hits <LI>11/24/2009: 160 hits <LI>12/4/2009: 205 hits <LI>12/10/2009: 158 hits <LI>12/23/2009: 156 hits <LI>12/30/2009: 164 hits <LI>1/12/2010: 151 hits <LI>1/21/2010: 211 hits <LI>2/11/2010: 175 hits <LI>2/24/2010: 193 hits <LI>3/5/2010: 169 hits <LI>3/19/2010: 147 hits <LI>4/2/2010: 137 hits <LI>4/7/2010: 146 hits <LI>4/22/2010: 185 hits <LI>4/29/2010: 246 hits <LI>6/4/2010: 146 hits <LI>6/18/2010: 139 hits <LI>7/13/2010: 183 hits <LI>7/28/2010: 162 hits <LI>8/17/2010: 149 hits <LI>8/27/2010: 190 hits <LI>9/14/2010: 196 hits <LI>9/29/2010: 233 hits <LI>11/4/2010: 276 hits <LI>1/19/2011: 112 hits <LI>3/1/2011: 119 hits <LI>3/9/2011: 144 hits <LI>5/11/2011: 120 hits <LI>10/22/2011: 153 hits</LI></UL> <DIV>Although the "mania" appears to have subsided somewhat, or at least has stabilized, the phrase "since the Great Depression" clearly resonates, at least among journalists.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>One possibility for the stabilization is that the term resonates enough that the media is more than happy to cling to a term that almost assures that readers will pay attention. How long will it continue to "resonate"? Maybe until the overall economy and employment are reliably rising month after month for at least six months, with unemployment declining reliably as well, and a significant portion of the eight million people put out of work by the recession are back to work. Obviously we are not there yet. As long as there is a reportable story about the economic hardships of this recession, the term will continue to be used.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>A fair amount of the usage at this stage is not comparison directly to The Great Depression, but simply using The Great Depression as a sort of bookend as in "since the Great Depression." Still, the media is clearly getting a lot of mileage out of the term even if they are not adding much in the way of useful information or enlightenment.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>My current belief is that the media mania over "The Great Depression" will continue until the current recovery from the recession has advanced to the point where a monthly gain of employment is no longer a calming surprise and once again becomes taken for granted. We may need to see a decline of a million or more in unemployment and an even greater gain in employment before that happens. I do not expect that to occur in the near future. It could be a year or more, especially since initial unemployment claims remain firmly elevated above typical recessionary levels.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Personally, I believe that even though we are into a modest recovery overall for the economy, on the labor front we are in a <STRONG>mini-depression</STRONG>. Even though employment will begin to recover and resume growth soon, the bulk of the eight million people who lost jobs due to the recession will remain jobless for several years to come. It may take five to ten years before the bulk of those people are finally back in mainstream employment. We will have a split economy, with 80% of the people doing reasonably well and 15% struggling with some combination of unemployment and under-employment is their household, including adult children, and that is besides the typical 5% or so who are typically living in poverty or near poverty even in a booming economy.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-4516101781744141103?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-131664976696103012011-05-11T17:01:00.000-04:002011-05-13T16:48:37.870-04:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>I am endeavoring to track the current media mania of attempting to draw parallels between the current economic situation and the Great Depression. I am doing this by using <A href="http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&amp;sourceid=chrome&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;q=%22the+great+depression%22#q=%22the+great+depression%22&amp;hl=en&amp;safe=off&amp;biw=1366&amp;bih=681&amp;tbs=sbd:1,qdr:d&amp;tbm=nws&amp;prmd=ivnsb&amp;ei=vPfKTZyxKoOx0QG39OXsBw&amp;start=120&amp;sa=N&amp;bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&amp;fp=eb2fb4208bc999a7">Google News</A> to count the total number of "news" references to the phrase "The Great Depression" in the previous 24 hours. I have been doing this for just over two years now.</DIV> <UL> <LI>1/10/2009: 411 hits <LI>1/30/2009: 319 hits <LI>2/6/2009: 308 hits <LI>2/25/2009: 389 hits <LI>3/10/2009: 306 hits <LI>3/24/2009: 285 hits <LI>4/9/2009: 93 hits <LI>4/28/2009: 184 hits <LI>4/30/2009: 195 hits <LI>5/7/2009: 184 hits <LI>5/21/2009: 167 hits <LI>6/5/2009: 99 hits <LI>7/8/2009: 170 hits <LI>7/22/2009: 177 hits <LI>7/29/2009: 189 hits <LI>8/14/2009: 169 hits <LI>8/20/2009: 168 hits <LI>8/26/2009: 168 hits <LI>9/2/2009: 147 hits <LI>10/13/2009: 158 hits <LI>10/22/2009: 208 hits <LI>10/29/2009: 246 hits <LI>11/3/2009: 176 hits <LI>11/17/2009: 133 hits <LI>11/24/2009: 160 hits <LI>12/4/2009: 205 hits <LI>12/10/2009: 158 hits <LI>12/23/2009: 156 hits <LI>12/30/2009: 164 hits <LI>1/12/2010: 151 hits <LI>1/21/2010: 211 hits <LI>2/11/2010: 175 hits <LI>2/24/2010: 193 hits <LI>3/5/2010: 169 hits <LI>3/19/2010: 147 hits <LI>4/2/2010: 137 hits <LI>4/7/2010: 146 hits <LI>4/22/2010: 185 hits <LI>4/29/2010: 246 hits <LI>6/4/2010: 146 hits <LI>6/18/2010: 139 hits <LI>7/13/2010: 183 hits <LI>7/28/2010: 162 hits <LI>8/17/2010: 149 hits <LI>8/27/2010: 190 hits <LI>9/14/2010: 196 hits <LI>9/29/2010: 233 hits <LI>11/4/2010: 276 hits <LI>1/19/2011: 112 hits <LI>3/1/2011: 119 hits <LI>3/9/2011: 144 hits <LI>5/11/2011: 120 hits</LI></UL> <DIV>Although the "mania" appears to have subsided somewhat, or at least has stabilized, the phrase "since the Great Depression" clearly resonates, at least among journalists.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Lately the frequency may have declined since there actually has been a reasonably steady drumbeat of upbeat economic news despite high unemployment. Chatter about a supposed double-dip recession has clearly subsided.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>One possibility for the stabilization is that the term resonates enough that the media is more than happy to cling to a term that almost assures that readers will pay attention. How long will it continue to "resonate"? Maybe until the overall economy and employment are reliably rising month after month for at least six months, with unemployment declining reliably as well, and a significant portion of the eight million people put out of work by the recession are back to work. Obviously we are not there yet. As long as there is a reportable story about the economic hardships of this recession, the term will continue to be used.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>A fair amount of the usage at this stage is not comparison directly to The Great Depression, but simply using The Great Depression as a sort of bookend as in "since the Great Depression." Still, the media is clearly getting a lot of mileage out of the term even if they are not adding much in the way of useful information or enlightenment.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>My current belief is that the media mania over "The Great Depression" will continue until the current recovery from the recession has advanced to the point where a monthly gain of employment is no longer a calming surprise and once again becomes taken for granted. We may need to see a decline of a million or more in unemployment and an even greater gain in employment before that happens. I do not expect that to occur in the near future. It could be a year or more, especially since initial unemployment claims remain firmly elevated above typical recessionary levels.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Personally, I believe that even though we are into a modest recovery overall for the economy, on the labor front we are in a <STRONG>mini-depression</STRONG>. Even though employment will begin to recover and resume growth soon, the bulk of the eight million people who lost jobs due to the recession will remain jobless for several years to come. It may take five to ten years before the bulk of those people are finally back in mainstream employment. We will have a split economy, with 80% of the people doing reasonably well and 15% struggling with some combination of unemployment and under-employment is their household, including adult children, and that is besides the typical 5% or so who are typically living in poverty or near poverty even in a booming economy.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-13166497669610301?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-16044793591456465992011-03-09T18:20:00.000-05:002011-03-09T18:25:11.829-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV>I am endeavoring to track the current media mania of attempting to draw parallels between the current economic situation and <STRONG>The Great Depression</STRONG>. I am doing this by using <A href="http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&amp;sourceid=chrome&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;q=%22the+great+depression%22#q=%22the+great+depression%22&amp;hl=en&amp;safe=off&amp;tbs=nws:1,qdr:d,sbd:1&amp;prmd=ivnsb&amp;ei=Cwl4TdKiIMnUgQfc3tnQBQ&amp;start=140&amp;sa=N&amp;bav=on.2,or.&amp;fp=5025900a98e2afea">Google News</A> to count the total number of "news" references to the phrase "The Great Depression" in the previous 24 hours. I have been doing this for just over two years now.</DIV> <UL> <LI>1/10/2009: 411 hits <LI>1/30/2009: 319 hits <LI>2/6/2009: 308 hits <LI>2/25/2009: 389 hits <LI>3/10/2009: 306 hits <LI>3/24/2009: 285 hits <LI>4/9/2009: 93 hits <LI>4/28/2009: 184 hits <LI>4/30/2009: 195 hits <LI>5/7/2009: 184 hits <LI>5/21/2009: 167 hits <LI>6/5/2009: 99 hits <LI>7/8/2009: 170 hits <LI>7/22/2009: 177 hits <LI>7/29/2009: 189 hits <LI>8/14/2009: 169 hits <LI>8/20/2009: 168 hits <LI>8/26/2009: 168 hits <LI>9/2/2009: 147 hits <LI>10/13/2009: 158 hits <LI>10/22/2009: 208 hits <LI>10/29/2009: 246 hits <LI>11/3/2009: 176 hits <LI>11/17/2009: 133 hits <LI>11/24/2009: 160 hits <LI>12/4/2009: 205 hits <LI>12/10/2009: 158 hits <LI>12/23/2009: 156 hits <LI>12/30/2009: 164 hits <LI>1/12/2010: 151 hits <LI>1/21/2010: 211 hits <LI>2/11/2010: 175 hits <LI>2/24/2010: 193 hits <LI>3/5/2010: 169 hits <LI>3/19/2010: 147 hits <LI>4/2/2010: 137 hits <LI>4/7/2010: 146 hits <LI>4/22/2010: 185 hits <LI>4/29/2010: 246 hits <LI>6/4/2010: 146 hits <LI>6/18/2010: 139 hits <LI>7/13/2010: 183 hits <LI>7/28/2010: 162 hits <LI>8/17/2010: 149 hits <LI>8/27/2010: 190 hits <LI>9/14/2010: 196 hits <LI>9/29/2010: 233 hits <LI>11/4/2010: 276 hits <LI>1/19/2011: 112 hits <LI>3/1/2011: 119 hits <LI>3/9/2011: 144 hits</LI></UL> <DIV>Although the "mania" appears to have subsided somewhat, or at least has stabilized, the phrase "since the Great Depression" clearly resonates, at least among journalists.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Lately the frequency may have declined since there actually has been a reasonably steady drumbeat of upbeat economic news despite high unemployment. Chatter about a supposed double-dip recession has clearly subsided.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>One possibility for the stabilization is that the term resonates enough that the media is more than happy to cling to a term that almost assures that readers will pay attention. How long will it continue to "resonate"? Maybe until the overall economy and employment are reliably rising month after month for at least six months, with unemployment declining reliably as well, and a significant portion of the eight million people put out of work by the recession are back to work. Obviously we are not there yet. As long as there is a reportable story about the economic hardships of this recession, the term will continue to be used.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>A fair amount of the usage at this stage is not comparison directly to The Great Depression, but simply using The Great Depression as a sort of bookend as in "since the Great Depression." Still, the media is clearly getting a lot of mileage out of the term even if they are not adding much in the way of useful information or enlightenment.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>My current belief is that the media mania over "The Great Depression" will continue until the current recovery from the recession has advanced to the point where a monthly gain of employment is no longer a calming surprise and once again becomes taken for granted. We may need to see a decline of a million or more in unemployment and an even greater gain in employment before that happens. I do not expect that to occur in the near future. It could be a year or more, especially since initial unemployment claims remain firmly elevated above typical recessionary levels.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Personally, I believe that even though we are into a modest recovery overall for the economy, on the labor front we are in a <STRONG>mini-depression</STRONG>. Even though employment will begin to recover and resume growth soon, the bulk of the eight million people who lost jobs due to the recession will remain jobless for several years to come. It may take five to ten years before the bulk of those people are finally back in mainstream employment. We will have a split economy, with 80% of the people doing reasonably well and 15% struggling with some combination of unemployment and under-employment is their household, including adult children, and that is besides the typical 5% or so who are typically living in poverty or near poverty even in a booming economy.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>-- Jack Krupansky</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-1604479359145646599?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-60244602088589503812011-03-01T19:43:00.000-05:002011-03-01T19:44:09.684-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV> <DIV style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none"> <DIV style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none"> <DIV style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none">I am endeavoring to track the current media mania of attempting to draw parallels between the current economic situation and <STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>. I am doing this by using <A title=http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&amp;um=1&amp;tab=bn&amp;scoring=n&amp;q= href='http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&amp;um=1&amp;tab=bn&amp;scoring=n&amp;q="the+great+depression"&amp;btnG=Search+News' link? follow to Click + the+great+depression?&amp;btnG="Search+News&#10;CTRL">Google News</A> to count the total number of "news" references to the phrase "The Great Depression" in the previous 24 hours. I have been doing this for just over two years now.</DIV> <DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <UL> <LI>1/10/2009: 411 hits <LI>1/30/2009: 319 hits <LI>2/6/2009: 308 hits <LI>2/25/2009: 389 hits <LI>3/10/2009: 306 hits <LI>3/24/2009: 285 hits <LI>4/9/2009: 93 hits <LI>4/28/2009: 184 hits <LI>4/30/2009: 195 hits <LI>5/7/2009: 184 hits <LI>5/21/2009: 167 hits <LI>6/5/2009: 99 hits <LI>7/8/2009: 170 hits <LI>7/22/2009: 177 hits <LI>7/29/2009: 189 hits <LI>8/14/2009: 169 hits <LI>8/20/2009: 168 hits <LI>8/26/2009: 168 hits <LI>9/2/2009: 147 hits <LI>10/13/2009: 158 hits <LI>10/22/2009: 208 hits <LI>10/29/2009: 246 hits <LI>11/3/2009: 176 hits <LI>11/17/2009: 133 hits <LI>11/24/2009: 160 hits <LI>12/4/2009: 205 hits <LI>12/10/2009: 158 hits <LI>12/23/2009: 156 hits <LI>12/30/2009: 164 hits <LI>1/12/2010: 151 hits <LI>1/21/2010: 211 hits <LI>2/11/2010: 175 hits <LI>2/24/2010: 193 hits <LI>3/5/2010: 169 hits <LI>3/19/2010: 147 hits <LI>4/2/2010: 137 hits <LI>4/7/2010: 146 hits <LI>4/22/2010: 185 hits <LI>4/29/2010: 246 hits <LI>6/4/2010: 146 hits <LI>6/18/2010: 139 hits <LI>7/13/2010: 183 hits <LI>7/28/2010: 162 hits <LI>8/17/2010: 149 hits <LI>8/27/2010: 190 hits <LI>9/14/2010: 196 hits <LI>9/29/2010: 233 hits <LI>11/4/2010: 276 hits <LI>1/19/2011: 112 hits <LI>3/1/2011: 119 hits</LI></UL> <P>Although the "mania" appears to have subsided somewhat, or at least has stabilized, the phrase "<EM>since the Great Depression</EM>" clearly resonates, at least among journalists.</P> <P>Lately the frequency may have declined since there actually has been a reasonably steady drumbeat of upbeat economic news despite high unemployment. Chatter about a supposed double-dip recession has clearly subsided.</P> <P>One possibility for the stabilization is that the term resonates enough that the media is more than happy to cling to a term that almost assures that readers will pay attention. How long will it continue to "resonate"? Maybe until the overall economy <EM>and</EM> employment are reliably rising month after month for at least six months, with unemployment declining reliably as well, and a significant portion of the eight million people put out of work by the recession are back to work. Obviously we are not there yet. As long as there is a reportable story about the economic hardships of this recession, the term will continue to be used.</P> <P>A fair amount of the usage at this stage is not comparison directly <EM>to</EM> The Great Depression, but simply using The Great Depression as a sort of <EM>bookend</EM> as in "<EM>since the Great Depression.</EM>" Still, the media is clearly getting a lot of mileage out of the term even if they are not adding much in the way of useful information or enlightenment.</P> <P>My current belief is that the media mania over "<STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>" will continue until the current recovery from the recession has advanced to the point where a monthly gain of employment is no longer a calming surprise and once again becomes taken for granted. We may need to see a decline of a million or more in unemployment and an even greater gain in employment before that happens. I do not expect that to occur in the near future. It could be a year or more, especially since initial unemployment claims remain firmly elevated above typical recessionary levels.</P> <P>Personally, I believe that even though we are into a <EM>modest recovery</EM> overall for the economy, on the labor front we are in a <EM>mini-depression</EM>. Even though employment will begin to recover and resume growth soon, the bulk of the <EM>eight million</EM> people who lost jobs due to the recession will remain jobless for several years to come. It may take five to ten years before the bulk of those people are finally back in mainstream employment. We will have a split economy, with 80% of the people doing reasonably well and 15% struggling with some combination of unemployment and under-employment is their household, including adult children, and that is besides the typical 5% or so who are typically living in poverty or near poverty even in a booming economy.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-6024460208858950381?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-39716520489114598372011-01-19T17:20:00.001-05:002011-01-19T17:20:15.237-05:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none"> <DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none"> <P>I am endeavoring to track the current media mania of attempting to draw parallels between the current economic situation and <STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>. I am doing this by using <A title=http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&amp;um=1&amp;tab=bn&amp;scoring=n&amp;q= href='http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&amp;um=1&amp;tab=bn&amp;scoring=n&amp;q="the+great+depression"&amp;btnG=Search+News' the+great+depression?&amp;btnG="Search+News&#10;CTRL" + Click to follow link?>Google News</A> to count the total number of "news" references to the phrase "The Great Depression" in the previous 24 hours. I have been doing this for just over two years now.</P> <UL> <LI>1/10/2009: 411 hits <LI>1/30/2009: 319 hits <LI>2/6/2009: 308 hits <LI>2/25/2009: 389 hits <LI>3/10/2009: 306 hits <LI>3/24/2009: 285 hits <LI>4/9/2009: 93 hits <LI>4/28/2009: 184 hits <LI>4/30/2009: 195 hits <LI>5/7/2009: 184 hits <LI>5/21/2009: 167 hits <LI>6/5/2009: 99 hits <LI>7/8/2009: 170 hits <LI>7/22/2009: 177 hits <LI>7/29/2009: 189 hits <LI>8/14/2009: 169 hits <LI>8/20/2009: 168 hits <LI>8/26/2009: 168 hits <LI>9/2/2009: 147 hits <LI>10/13/2009: 158 hits <LI>10/22/2009: 208 hits <LI>10/29/2009: 246 hits <LI>11/3/2009: 176 hits <LI>11/17/2009: 133 hits <LI>11/24/2009: 160 hits <LI>12/4/2009: 205 hits <LI>12/10/2009: 158 hits <LI>12/23/2009: 156 hits <LI>12/30/2009: 164 hits <LI>1/12/2010: 151 hits <LI>1/21/2010: 211 hits <LI>2/11/2010: 175 hits <LI>2/24/2010: 193 hits <LI>3/5/2010: 169 hits <LI>3/19/2010: 147 hits <LI>4/2/2010: 137 hits <LI>4/7/2010: 146 hits <LI>4/22/2010: 185 hits <LI>4/29/2010: 246 hits <LI>6/4/2010: 146 hits <LI>6/18/2010: 139 hits <LI>7/13/2010: 183 hits <LI>7/28/2010: 162 hits <LI>8/17/2010: 149 hits <LI>8/27/2010: 190 hits <LI>9/14/2010: 196 hits <LI>9/29/2010: 233 hits <LI>11/4/2010: 276 hits <LI>1/19/2011: 112 hits</LI></UL> <P>Although the "mania" appears to have subsided somewhat, or at least has stabilized, the phrase "<EM>since the Great Depression</EM>" clearly resonates, at least among journalists.</P> <P>Lately the frequency may have declined since there actually has been a reasonably steady drumbeat of upbeat economic news despite high unemployment. Chatter about a supposed double-dip recession has clearly subsided.</P> <P>One possibility for the stabilization is that the term resonates enough that the media is more than happy to cling to a term that almost assures that readers will pay attention. How long will it continue to "resonate"? Maybe until the overall economy <EM>and</EM> employment are reliably rising month after month for at least six months, with unemployment declining reliably as well, and a significant portion of the eight million people put out of work by the recession are back to work. Obviously we are not there yet. As long as there is a reportable story about the economic hardships of this recession, the term will continue to be used.</P> <P>A fair amount of the usage at this stage is not comparison directly <EM>to</EM> The Great Depression, but simply using The Great Depression as a sort of <EM>bookend</EM> as in "<EM>since the Great Depression.</EM>" Still, the media is clearly getting a lot of mileage out of the term even if they are not adding much in the way of useful information or enlightenment.</P> <P>My current belief is that the media mania over "<STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>" will continue until the current recovery from the recession has advanced to the point where a monthly gain of employment is no longer a calming surprise and once again becomes taken for granted. We may need to see a decline of a million or more in unemployment and an even greater gain in employment before that happens. I do not expect that to occur in the near future. It could be a year or more, especially since initial unemployment claims remain firmly elevated above typical recessionary levels.</P> <P>Personally, I believe that even though we are into a <EM>modest recovery</EM> overall for the economy, on the labor front we are in a <EM>mini-depression</EM>. Even though employment will begin to recover and resume growth soon, the bulk of the <EM>eight million</EM> people who lost jobs due to the recession will remain jobless for several years to come. It may take five to ten years before the bulk of those people are finally back in mainstream employment. We will have a split economy, with 80% of the people doing reasonably well and 15% struggling with some combination of unemployment and under-employment is their household, including adult children, and that is besides the typical 5% or so who are typically living in poverty or near poverty even in a booming economy.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-3971652048911459837?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-15746724053209656772010-11-04T10:53:00.001-04:002010-11-04T10:53:16.837-04:00<DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none"> <P>I am endeavoring to track the current media mania of attempting to draw parallels between the current economic situation and <STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>. I am doing this by using <A title=http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&amp;um=1&amp;tab=bn&amp;scoring=n&amp;q= href='http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&amp;um=1&amp;tab=bn&amp;scoring=n&amp;q="the+great+depression"&amp;btnG=Search+News' link? follow to Click + the+great+depression?&amp;btnG="Search+News&#10;CTRL">Google News</A> to count the total number of "news" references to the phrase "The Great Depression" in the previous 24 hours. I have been doing this for just over eighteen months now.</P> <UL> <LI>1/10/2009: 411 hits <LI>1/30/2009: 319 hits <LI>2/6/2009: 308 hits <LI>2/25/2009: 389 hits <LI>3/10/2009: 306 hits <LI>3/24/2009: 285 hits <LI>4/9/2009: 93 hits <LI>4/28/2009: 184 hits <LI>4/30/2009: 195 hits <LI>5/7/2009: 184 hits <LI>5/21/2009: 167 hits <LI>6/5/2009: 99 hits <LI>7/8/2009: 170 hits <LI>7/22/2009: 177 hits <LI>7/29/2009: 189 hits <LI>8/14/2009: 169 hits <LI>8/20/2009: 168 hits <LI>8/26/2009: 168 hits <LI>9/2/2009: 147 hits <LI>10/13/2009: 158 hits <LI>10/22/2009: 208 hits <LI>10/29/2009: 246 hits <LI>11/3/2009: 176 hits (one year ago) <LI>11/17/2009: 133 hits <LI>11/24/2009: 160 hits <LI>12/4/2009: 205 hits <LI>12/10/2009: 158 hits <LI>12/23/2009: 156 hits <LI>12/30/2009: 164 hits <LI>1/12/2010: 151 hits <LI>1/21/2010: 211 hits <LI>2/11/2010: 175 hits <LI>2/24/2010: 193 hits <LI>3/5/2010: 169 hits <LI>3/19/2010: 147 hits <LI>4/2/2010: 137 hits <LI>4/7/2010: 146 hits <LI>4/22/2010: 185 hits <LI>4/29/2010: 246 hits <LI>6/4/2010: 146 hits <LI>6/18/2010: 139 hits <LI>7/13/2010: 183 hits <LI>7/28/2010: 162 hits <LI>8/17/2010: 149 hits <LI>8/27/2010: 190 hits <LI>9/14/2010: 196 hits <LI>9/29/2010: 233 hits <LI>11/4/2010: 276 hits</LI></UL> <P>Although the "mania" appears to have subsided somewhat, or at least has stabilized, the phrase "<EM>since the Great Depression</EM>" clearly resonates, at least among journalists.</P> <P>Lately the frequency may have risen in parallel to the pundit and media drumbeat about a supposed double-dip recession, not to mention election-year fear-mongering. Some pundits are absolutely convinced that renewed recession is imminent, but for a lot of observers the jury is still out on that front.</P> <P>One possibility for the stabilization is that the term resonates enough that the media is more than happy to cling to a term that almost assures that readers will pay attention. How long will it continue to "resonate"? Maybe until the overall economy <EM>and</EM> employment are reliably rising month after month for at least six months, with unemployment declining reliably as well, and a significant portion of the eight million people put out of work by the recession are back to work. Obviously we are not there yet. As long as there is a reportable story about the economic hardships of this recession, the term will continue to be used.</P> <P>A fair amount of the usage at this stage is not comparison directly <EM>to</EM> The Great Depression, but simply using The Great Depression as a sort of <EM>bookend</EM> as in "<EM>since the Great Depression.</EM>" Still, the media is clearly getting a lot of mileage out of the term even if they are not adding much in the way of useful information or enlightenment.</P> <P>My current belief is that the media mania over "<STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>" will continue until the current recovery from the recession has advanced to the point where a monthly gain of employment is no longer a calming surprise and once again becomes taken for granted. We may need to see a decline of a million or more in unemployment and an even greater gain in employment before that happens. I do not expect that to occur in the near future. It could be a year or more, especially since initial unemployment claims remain firmly elevated above typical recessionary levels.</P> <P>Personally, I believe that even though we are into a <EM>modest recovery</EM> overall for the economy, on the labor front we are in a <EM>mini-depression</EM>. Even though employment will begin to recover and resume growth soon, the bulk of the <EM>eight million</EM> people who lost jobs due to the recession will remain jobless for several years to come. It may take five to ten years before the bulk of those people are finally back in mainstream employment. We will have a split economy, with 85% of the people doing reasonably well and 15% struggling with some combination of unemployment and under-employment is their household, including adult children, and that is besides the typical 5% or so who are typically living in poverty or near poverty even in a booming economy.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P></DIV></DIV></DIV><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-1574672405320965677?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-4940453024190080462010-09-29T16:02:00.001-04:002010-09-29T16:02:24.566-04:00<P>I am endeavoring to track the current media mania of attempting to draw parallels between the current economic situation and <STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>. I am doing this by using <A title='http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&amp;um=1&amp;tab=bn&amp;scoring=n&amp;q="the+great+depression"&amp;btnG=Search+News&#10;CTRL + Click to follow link' href='http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&amp;um=1&amp;tab=bn&amp;scoring=n&amp;q="the+great+depression"&amp;btnG=Search+News'>Google News</A> to count the total number of "news" references to the phrase "The Great Depression" in the previous 24 hours. I have been doing this for just over&nbsp;eighteen months now.</P> <UL> <LI>1/10/2009: 411 hits <LI>1/30/2009: 319 hits <LI>2/6/2009: 308 hits <LI>2/25/2009:&nbsp;389 hits <LI>3/10/2009: 306 hits <LI>3/24/2009: 285 hits <LI>4/9/2009: 93 hits <LI>4/28/2009: 184 hits <LI>4/30/2009: 195 hits <LI>5/7/2009: 184 hits <LI>5/21/2009: 167 hits <LI>6/5/2009: 99 hits <LI>7/8/2009: 170 hits <LI>7/22/2009: 177 hits <LI>7/29/2009: 189 hits <LI>8/14/2009: 169 hits <LI>8/20/2009: 168 hits <LI>8/26/2009: 168 hits <LI>9/2/2009: 147 hits (one year ago) <LI>10/13/2009: 158 hits <LI>10/22/2009: 208 hits <LI>10/29/2009: 246 hits <LI>11/3/2009: 176 hits <LI>11/17/2009: 133 hits <LI>11/24/2009: 160 hits <LI>12/4/2009: 205 hits <LI>12/10/2009: 158 hits <LI>12/23/2009: 156 hits <LI>12/30/2009: 164 hits <LI>1/12/2010: 151 hits <LI>1/21/2010: 211 hits <LI>2/11/2010: 175 hits <LI>2/24/2010: 193 hits <LI>3/5/2010: 169 hits <LI>3/19/2010: 147 hits <LI>4/2/2010: 137 hits <LI>4/7/2010: 146 hits <LI>4/22/2010: 185 hits <LI>4/29/2010: 246 hits <LI>6/4/2010: 146 hits <LI>6/18/2010: 139 hits <LI>7/13/2010: 183 hits <LI>7/28/2010: 162 hits <LI>8/17/2010: 149 hits <LI>8/27/2010: 190 hits <LI>9/14/2010: 196 hits <LI>9/29/2010: 233 hits</LI></UL> <P>Although the "mania" appears to have subsided somewhat, or at least has stabilized, the phrase "<EM>since the Great Depression</EM>" clearly resonates, at least among journalists.</P> <P>Lately the frequency may have risen in parallel to the pundit and media drumbeat about a supposed double-dip recession. Some pundits are absolutely convinced that renewed recession is imminent, but for a lot of observers the jury is still out on that front.</P> <P>One possibility for the stabilization is that the term resonates enough that the media is more than happy to cling to a term that almost assures that readers will pay attention. How long will it continue to "resonate"? Maybe until the overall economy <EM>and</EM> employment are reliably rising month after month for at least six months, with unemployment declining reliably as well, and a significant portion of the eight million people put out of work by the recession are back to work. Obviously we are not there yet. As long as there is a reportable story about the economic hardships of this recession, the term will continue to be used.</P> <P>A&nbsp;fair amount of the usage at this stage is not comparison directly <EM>to</EM> The Great Depression, but&nbsp;simply using&nbsp;The Great Depression as a sort of <EM>bookend</EM> as in&nbsp;"<EM>since the Great Depression.</EM>" Still, the media is clearly getting a lot of mileage out of the term even if they are not adding much in the way of useful information or enlightenment.</P> <P>My current belief is that the media mania over&nbsp;"<STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>" will continue until the current recovery from the recession has advanced to the point where a monthly gain of employment is no longer a calming surprise and once again becomes taken for granted. We may need to see a decline of a million or more in unemployment and an even greater gain in employment before that happens. I do not expect that to occur in the near future. It could be a year or more, especially since initial unemployment claims remain firmly elevated above typical recessionary levels.</P> <P>Personally, I believe that even though we are into a <EM>modest recovery</EM> overall for the economy, on the labor front we are in a <EM>mini-depression</EM>. Even though employment will begin to recover and resume growth soon, the bulk of the <EM>eight million</EM> people who lost jobs due to the recession will remain jobless for several years to come. It may take five to ten years before the bulk of those people are finally back in mainstream employment. We will have a split economy, with 85% of the people doing reasonably well and 15% struggling with some combination of unemployment and under-employment is their household, including adult children, and that is besides the typical 5% or so who are typically living in poverty or near poverty even in a booming economy.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-494045302419008046?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-36251649989329025222010-09-14T18:48:00.001-04:002010-09-14T18:48:23.938-04:00<P>I am endeavoring to track the current media mania of attempting to draw parallels between the current economic situation and <STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>. I am doing this by using <A title='http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&amp;um=1&amp;tab=bn&amp;scoring=n&amp;q="the+great+depression"&amp;btnG=Search+News&#10;CTRL + Click to follow link' href='http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&amp;um=1&amp;tab=bn&amp;scoring=n&amp;q="the+great+depression"&amp;btnG=Search+News'>Google News</A> to count the total number of "news" references to the phrase "The Great Depression" in the previous 24 hours. I have been doing this for just over&nbsp;eighteen months now.</P> <UL> <LI>1/10/2009: 411 hits <LI>1/30/2009: 319 hits <LI>2/6/2009: 308 hits <LI>2/25/2009:&nbsp;389 hits <LI>3/10/2009: 306 hits <LI>3/24/2009: 285 hits <LI>4/9/2009: 93 hits <LI>4/28/2009: 184 hits <LI>4/30/2009: 195 hits <LI>5/7/2009: 184 hits <LI>5/21/2009: 167 hits <LI>6/5/2009: 99 hits <LI>7/8/2009: 170 hits <LI>7/22/2009: 177 hits <LI>7/29/2009: 189 hits <LI>8/14/2009: 169 hits <LI>8/20/2009: 168 hits <LI>8/26/2009: 168 hits <LI>9/2/2009: 147 hits (one year ago) <LI>10/13/2009: 158 hits <LI>10/22/2009: 208 hits <LI>10/29/2009: 246 hits <LI>11/3/2009: 176 hits <LI>11/17/2009: 133 hits <LI>11/24/2009: 160 hits <LI>12/4/2009: 205 hits <LI>12/10/2009: 158 hits <LI>12/23/2009: 156 hits <LI>12/30/2009: 164 hits <LI>1/12/2010: 151 hits <LI>1/21/2010: 211 hits <LI>2/11/2010: 175 hits <LI>2/24/2010: 193 hits <LI>3/5/2010: 169 hits <LI>3/19/2010: 147 hits <LI>4/2/2010: 137 hits <LI>4/7/2010: 146 hits <LI>4/22/2010: 185 hits <LI>4/29/2010: 246 hits <LI>6/4/2010: 146 hits <LI>6/18/2010: 139 hits <LI>7/13/2010: 183 hits <LI>7/28/2010: 162 hits <LI>8/17/2010: 149 hits <LI>8/27/2010: 190 hits <LI>9/14/2010: 196 hits</LI></UL> <P>Although the "mania" appears to have subsided somewhat, or at least has stabilized, the phrase "<EM>since the Great Depression</EM>" clearly resonates, at least among journalists.</P> <P>Lately the frequency may have risen in parallel to the pundit and media drumbeat about a supposed double-dip recession. Some pundits are absolutely convinced that renewed recession is imminent, but for a lot of observers the jury is still out on that front.</P> <P>One possibility for the stabilization is that the term resonates enough that the media is more than happy to cling to a term that almost assures that readers will pay attention. How long will it continue to "resonate"? Maybe until the overall economy <EM>and</EM> employment are reliably rising month after month for at least six months, with unemployment declining reliably as well, and a significant portion of the eight million people put out of work by the recession are back to work. Obviously we are not there yet. As long as there is a reportable story about the economic hardships of this recession, the term will continue to be used.</P> <P>A&nbsp;fair amount of the usage at this stage is not comparison directly <EM>to</EM> The Great Depression, but&nbsp;simply using&nbsp;The Great Depression as a sort of <EM>bookend</EM> as in&nbsp;"<EM>since the Great Depression.</EM>" Still, the media is clearly getting a lot of mileage out of the term even if they are not adding much in the way of useful information or enlightenment.</P> <P>My current belief is that the media mania over&nbsp;"<STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>" will continue until the current recovery from the recession has advanced to the point where a monthly gain of employment is no longer a calming surprise and once again becomes taken for granted. We may need to see a decline of a million or more in unemployment and an even greater gain in employment before that happens. I do not expect that to occur in the near future. It could be a year or more, especially since initial unemployment claims remain firmly elevated above typical recessionary levels.</P> <P>Personally, I believe that even though we are into a <EM>modest recovery</EM> overall for the economy, on the labor front we are in a <EM>mini-depression</EM>. Even though employment will begin to recover and resume growth soon, the bulk of the <EM>eight million</EM> people who lost jobs due to the recession will remain jobless for several years to come. It may take five to ten years before the bulk of those people are finally back in mainstream employment. We will have a split economy, with 85% of the people doing reasonably well and 15% struggling with some combination of unemployment and under-employment is their household, including adult children, and that is besides the typical 5% or so who are typically living in poverty or near poverty even in a booming economy.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-3625164998932902522?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-62951084952677782702010-08-27T16:27:00.001-04:002010-08-27T16:27:13.281-04:00<P>I am endeavoring to track the current media mania of attempting to draw parallels between the current economic situation and <STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>. I am doing this by using <A title='http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&amp;um=1&amp;tab=bn&amp;scoring=n&amp;q="the+great+depression"&amp;btnG=Search+News&#10;CTRL + Click to follow link' href='http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&amp;um=1&amp;tab=bn&amp;scoring=n&amp;q="the+great+depression"&amp;btnG=Search+News'>Google News</A> to count the total number of "news" references to the phrase "The Great Depression" in the previous 24 hours. I have been doing this for just over&nbsp;eighteen months now.</P> <UL> <LI>1/10/2009: 411 hits <LI>1/30/2009: 319 hits <LI>2/6/2009: 308 hits <LI>2/25/2009:&nbsp;389 hits <LI>3/10/2009: 306 hits <LI>3/24/2009: 285 hits <LI>4/9/2009: 93 hits <LI>4/28/2009: 184 hits <LI>4/30/2009: 195 hits <LI>5/7/2009: 184 hits <LI>5/21/2009: 167 hits <LI>6/5/2009: 99 hits <LI>7/8/2009: 170 hits <LI>7/22/2009: 177 hits <LI>7/29/2009: 189 hits <LI>8/14/2009: 169 hits <LI>8/20/2009: 168 hits <LI>8/26/2009: 168 hits (one year ago) <LI>9/2/2009: 147 hits <LI>10/13/2009: 158 hits <LI>10/22/2009: 208 hits <LI>10/29/2009: 246 hits <LI>11/3/2009: 176 hits <LI>11/17/2009: 133 hits <LI>11/24/2009: 160 hits <LI>12/4/2009: 205 hits <LI>12/10/2009: 158 hits <LI>12/23/2009: 156 hits <LI>12/30/2009: 164 hits <LI>1/12/2010: 151 hits <LI>1/21/2010: 211 hits <LI>2/11/2010: 175 hits <LI>2/24/2010: 193 hits <LI>3/5/2010: 169 hits <LI>3/19/2010: 147 hits <LI>4/2/2010: 137 hits <LI>4/7/2010: 146 hits <LI>4/22/2010: 185 hits <LI>4/29/2010: 246 hits <LI>6/4/2010: 146 hits <LI>6/18/2010: 139 hits <LI>7/13/2010: 183 hits <LI>7/28/2010: 162 hits <LI>8/17/2010: 149 hits <LI>8/27/1010: 190 hits</LI></UL> <P>Although the "mania" appears to have subsided somewhat, or at least has stabilized, the phrase "<EM>since the Great Depression</EM>" clearly resonates, at least among journalists.</P> <P>Lately the frequency may have risen in parallel to the pundit and media drumbeat about a supposed double-dip recession.</P> <P>One possibility for the stabilization is that the term resonates enough that the media is more than happy to cling to a term that almost assures that readers will pay attention. How long will it continue to "resonate"? Maybe until the overall economy <EM>and</EM> employment are reliably rising month after month for at least six months, with unemployment declining reliably as well, and a significant portion of the eight million people put out of work by the recession are back to work. Obviously we are not there yet. As long as there is a reportable story about the economic hardships of this recession, the term will continue to be used.</P> <P>A&nbsp;fair amount of the usage at this stage is not comparison directly <EM>to</EM> The Great Depression, but&nbsp;simply using&nbsp;The Great Depression as a sort of <EM>bookend</EM> as in&nbsp;"<EM>since the Great Depression.</EM>" Still, the media is clearly getting a lot of mileage out of the term even if they are not adding much in the way of useful information or enlightenment.</P> <P>My current belief is that the media mania over&nbsp;"<STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>" will continue until the current recovery from the recession has advanced to the point where a monthly gain of employment is no longer a calming surprise and once again becomes taken for granted. We may need to see a decline of a million or more in unemployment and an even greater gain in employment before that happens. I do not expect that to occur in the near future. It could be a year or more, especially since initial unemployment claims remain firmly elevated above typical recessionary levels.</P> <P>Personally, I believe that even though we are into a <EM>modest recovery</EM> overall for the economy, on the labor front we are in a <EM>mini-depression</EM>. Even though employment will begin to recover and resume growth soon, the bulk of the <EM>eight million</EM> people who lost jobs due to the recession will remain jobless for several years to come. It may take five to ten years before the bulk of those people are finally back in mainstream employment.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-6295108495267778270?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-29703517993398525402010-08-17T10:53:00.001-04:002010-08-17T10:53:43.497-04:00<P>I am endeavoring to track the current media mania of attempting to draw parallels between the current economic situation and <STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>. I am doing this by using <A title='http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&amp;um=1&amp;tab=bn&amp;scoring=n&amp;q="the+great+depression"&amp;btnG=Search+News&#10;CTRL + Click to follow link' href='http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&amp;um=1&amp;tab=bn&amp;scoring=n&amp;q="the+great+depression"&amp;btnG=Search+News'>Google News</A> to count the total number of "news" references to the phrase "The Great Depression" in the previous 24 hours. I have been doing this for just over&nbsp;eighteen months now.</P> <UL> <LI>1/10/2009: 411 hits <LI>1/30/2009: 319 hits <LI>2/6/2009: 308 hits <LI>2/25/2009:&nbsp;389 hits <LI>3/10/2009: 306 hits <LI>3/24/2009: 285 hits <LI>4/9/2009: 93 hits <LI>4/28/2009: 184 hits <LI>4/30/2009: 195 hits <LI>5/7/2009: 184 hits <LI>5/21/2009: 167 hits <LI>6/5/2009: 99 hits <LI>7/8/2009: 170 hits <LI>7/22/2009: 177 hits <LI>7/29/2009: 189 hits <LI>8/14/2009: 169 hits (one year ago) <LI>8/20/2009: 168 hits <LI>8/26/2009: 168 hits <LI>9/2/2009: 147 hits <LI>10/13/2009: 158 hits <LI>10/22/2009: 208 hits <LI>10/29/2009: 246 hits <LI>11/3/2009: 176 hits <LI>11/17/2009: 133 hits <LI>11/24/2009: 160 hits <LI>12/4/2009: 205 hits <LI>12/10/2009: 158 hits <LI>12/23/2009: 156 hits <LI>12/30/2009: 164 hits <LI>1/12/2010: 151 hits <LI>1/21/2010: 211 hits <LI>2/11/2010: 175 hits <LI>2/24/2010: 193 hits <LI>3/5/2010: 169 hits <LI>3/19/2010: 147 hits <LI>4/2/2010: 137 hits <LI>4/7/2010: 146 hits <LI>4/22/2010: 185 hits <LI>4/29/2010: 246 hits <LI>6/4/2010: 146 hits <LI>6/18/2010: 139 hits <LI>7/13/2010: 183 hits <LI>7/28/2010: 162 hits <LI>8/17/2010: 149 hits</LI></UL> <P>Although the "mania" appears to have subsided somewhat, or at least has stabilized, the phrase "<EM>since the Great Depression</EM>" clearly resonates, at least among journalists.</P> <P>Lately the frequency may have risen in parallel to the pundit and media drumbeat about a supposed double-dip recession.</P> <P>One possibility for the stabilization is that the term resonates enough that the media is more than happy to cling to a term that almost assures that readers will pay attention. How long will it continue to "resonate"? Maybe until the overall economy <EM>and</EM> employment are reliably rising month after month for at least six months, with unemployment declining reliably as well, and a significant portion of the eight million people put out of work by the recession are back to work. Obviously we are not there yet. As long as there is a reportable story about the economic hardships of this recession, the term will continue to be used.</P> <P>A&nbsp;fair amount of the usage at this stage is not comparison directly <EM>to</EM> The Great Depression, but&nbsp;simply using&nbsp;The Great Depression as a sort of <EM>bookend</EM> as in&nbsp;"<EM>since the Great Depression.</EM>" Still, the media is clearly getting a lot of mileage out of the term even if they are not adding much in the way of useful information or enlightenment.</P> <P>My current belief is that the media mania over&nbsp;"<STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>" will continue until the current recovery from the recession has advanced to the point where a monthly gain of employment is no longer a calming surprise and once again becomes taken for granted. We may need to see a decline of a million or more in unemployment and an even greater gain in employment before that happens. I do not expect that to occur in the near future. It could be a year or more, especially since initial unemployment claims remain firmly elevated above typical recessionary levels.</P> <P>Personally, I believe that even though we are into a <EM>modest recovery</EM> overall for the economy, on the labor front we are in a <EM>mini-depression</EM>. Even though employment will begin to recover and resume growth soon, the bulk of the <EM>eight million</EM> people who lost jobs due to the recession will remain jobless for several years to come. It may take five to ten years before the bulk of those people are finally back in mainstream employment.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-2970351799339852540?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-18526183529280303422010-07-28T11:31:00.001-04:002010-07-28T11:31:30.125-04:00<P>I am endeavoring to track the current media mania of attempting to draw parallels between the current economic situation and <STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>. I am doing this by using <A href='http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&amp;um=1&amp;tab=bn&amp;scoring=n&amp;q="the+great+depression"&amp;btnG=Search+News'>Google News</A> to count the total number of "news" references to the phrase "The Great Depression" in the previous 24 hours. I have been doing this for just over a year now.</P> <UL> <LI>1/10/2009: 411 hits <LI>1/30/2009: 319 hits <LI>2/6/2009: 308 hits <LI>2/25/2009:&nbsp;389 hits <LI>3/10/2009: 306 hits <LI>3/24/2009: 285 hits <LI>4/9/2009: 93 hits <LI>4/28/2009: 184 hits <LI>4/30/2009: 195 hits <LI>5/7/2009: 184 hits <LI>5/21/2009: 167 hits <LI>6/5/2009: 99 hits <LI>7/8/2009: 170 hits <LI>7/22/2009: 177 hits <LI>7/29/2009: 189 hits (one year ago) <LI>8/14/2009: 169 hits <LI>8/20/2009: 168 hits <LI>8/26/2009: 168 hits <LI>9/2/2009: 147 hits <LI>10/13/2009: 158 hits <LI>10/22/2009: 208 hits <LI>10/29/2009: 246 hits <LI>11/3/2009: 176 hits <LI>11/17/2009: 133 hits <LI>11/24/2009: 160 hits <LI>12/4/2009: 205 hits <LI>12/10/2009: 158 hits <LI>12/23/2009: 156 hits <LI>12/30/2009: 164 hits <LI>1/12/2010: 151 hits <LI>1/21/2010: 211 hits <LI>2/11/2010: 175 hits <LI>2/24/2010: 193 hits <LI>3/5/2010: 169 hits <LI>3/19/2010: 147 hits <LI>4/2/2010: 137 hits <LI>4/7/2010: 146 hits <LI>4/22/2010: 185 hits <LI>4/29/2010: 246 hits <LI>6/4/2010: 146 hits <LI>6/18/2010: 139 hits <LI>7/13/2010: 183 hits <LI>7/28/2010: 162 hits</LI></UL> <P>Although the "mania" appears to have subsided somewhat, or at least has stabilized, the phrase "<EM>since the Great Depression</EM>" clearly resonates, at least among journalists.</P> <P>Lately the frequency may have risen in parallel to the pundit and media drumbeat about a supposed double-dip recession.</P> <P>One possibility for the stabilization is that the term resonates enough that the media is more than happy to cling to a term that almost assures that readers will pay attention. How long will it continue to "resonate"? Maybe until the overall economy <EM>and</EM> employment are reliably rising month after month for at least six months, with unemployment declining reliably as well, and a significant portion of the eight million people put out of work by the recession are back to work. Obviously we are not there yet. As long as there is a reportable story about the economic hardships of this recession, the term will continue to be used.</P> <P>A&nbsp;fair amount of the usage at this stage is not comparison directly <EM>to</EM> The Great Depression, but&nbsp;simply using&nbsp;The Great Depression as a sort of <EM>bookend</EM> as in&nbsp;"<EM>since the Great Depression.</EM>" Still, the media is clearly getting a lot of mileage out of the term even if they are not adding much in the way of useful information or enlightenment.</P> <P>My current belief is that the media mania over&nbsp;"<STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>" will continue until the current recovery from the recession has advanced to the point where a monthly gain of employment is no longer a calming surprise and once again becomes taken for granted. We may need to see a decline of a million or more in unemployment and an even greater gain in employment before that happens. I do not expect that to occur in the near future. It could be a year or more, especially since initial unemployment claims remain firmly elevated above typical recessionary levels.</P> <P>Personally, I believe that even though we are into a <EM>modest recovery</EM> overall for the economy, on the labor front we are in a <EM>mini-depression</EM>. Even though employment will begin to recover and resume growth soon, the bulk of the <EM>eight million</EM> people who lost jobs due to the recession will remain jobless for several years to come. It may take five to ten years before the bulk of those people are finally back in mainstream employment.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-1852618352928030342?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-54904802975594333682010-07-13T09:39:00.000-04:002010-07-13T09:42:25.372-04:00<P>I am endeavoring to track the current media mania of attempting to draw parallels between the current economic situation and <STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>. I am doing this by using <A href='http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&amp;um=1&amp;tab=bn&amp;scoring=n&amp;q="the+great+depression"&amp;btnG=Search+News'>Google News</A> to count the total number of "news" references to the phrase "The Great Depression" in the previous 24 hours. I have been doing this for just over a year now.</P> <UL> <LI>1/10/2009: 411 hits <LI>1/30/2009: 319 hits <LI>2/6/2009: 308 hits <LI>2/25/2009:&nbsp;389 hits <LI>3/10/2009: 306 hits <LI>3/24/2009: 285 hits <LI>4/9/2009: 93 hits <LI>4/28/2009: 184 hits <LI>4/30/2009: 195 hits <LI>5/7/2009: 184 hits <LI>5/21/2009: 167 hits <LI>6/5/2009: 99 hits <LI>7/8/2009: 170 hits (one year ago) <LI>7/22/2009: 177 hits <LI>7/29/2009: 189 hits <LI>8/14/2009: 169 hits <LI>8/20/2009: 168 hits <LI>8/26/2009: 168 hits <LI>9/2/2009: 147 hits <LI>10/13/2009: 158 hits <LI>10/22/2009: 208 hits <LI>10/29/2009: 246 hits <LI>11/3/2009: 176 hits <LI>11/17/2009: 133 hits <LI>11/24/2009: 160 hits <LI>12/4/2009: 205 hits <LI>12/10/2009: 158 hits <LI>12/23/2009: 156 hits <LI>12/30/2009: 164 hits <LI>1/12/2010: 151 hits <LI>1/21/2010: 211 hits <LI>2/11/2010: 175 hits <LI>2/24/2010: 193 hits <LI>3/5/2010: 169 hits <LI>3/19/2010: 147 hits <LI>4/2/2010: 137 hits <LI>4/7/2010: 146 hits <LI>4/22/2010: 185 hits <LI>4/29/2010: 246 hits <LI>6/4/2010: 146 hits <LI>6/18/2010: 139 hits <LI>7/13/2010: 183 hits</LI></UL> <P>Although the "mania" appears to have subsided somewhat, or at least has stabilized, the phrase "<EM>since the Great Depression</EM>" clearly resonates, at least among journalists.</P> <P>Lately the frequency may have risen in parallel to the pundit and media drumbeat about a supposed double-dip recession.</P> <P>One possibility for the stabilization is that the term resonates enough that the media is more than happy to cling to a term that almost assures that readers will pay attention. How long will it continue to "resonate"? Maybe until the overall economy <EM>and</EM> employment are reliably rising month after month for at least six months, with unemployment declining reliably as well, and a significant portion of the eight million people put out of work by the recession are back to work. Obviously we are not there yet. As long as there is a reportable story about the economic hardships of this recession, the term will continue to be used.</P> <P>A&nbsp;fair amount of the usage at this stage is not comparison directly <EM>to</EM> The Great Depression, but&nbsp;simply using&nbsp;The Great Depression as a sort of <EM>bookend</EM> as in&nbsp;"<EM>since the Great Depression.</EM>" Still, the media is clearly getting a lot of mileage out of the term even if they are not adding much in the way of useful information or enlightenment.</P> <P>My current belief is that the media mania over&nbsp;"<STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>" will continue until the current recovery from the recession has advanced to the point where a monthly gain of employment is no longer a calming surprise and once again becomes taken for granted. We may need to see a decline of a million or more in unemployment and an even greater gain in employment before that happens. I do not expect that to occur in the near future. It could be a year or more, especially since initial unemployment claims remain firmly elevated above typical recessionary levels.</P> <P>Personally, I believe that even though we are into a <EM>modest recovery</EM> overall for the economy, on the labor front we are in a <EM>mini-depression</EM>. Even though employment will begin to recover and resume growth soon, the bulk of the <EM>eight million</EM> people who lost jobs over the past two years will remain jobless for several years to come. It may take five to ten years before the bulk of those people are finally back in mainstream employment.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-5490480297559433368?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-20755883648819660102010-06-18T16:50:00.001-04:002010-06-18T16:50:47.027-04:00<P>I am endeavoring to track the current media mania of attempting to draw parallels between the current economic situation and <STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>. I am doing this by using <A href='http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&amp;um=1&amp;tab=bn&amp;scoring=n&amp;q="the+great+depression"&amp;btnG=Search+News'>Google News</A> to count the total number of "news" references to the phrase "The Great Depression" in the previous 24 hours. I have been doing this for just over a year now.</P> <UL> <LI>1/10/2009: 411 hits <LI>1/30/2009: 319 hits <LI>2/6/2009: 308 hits <LI>2/25/2009:&nbsp;389 hits <LI>3/10/2009: 306 hits <LI>3/24/2009: 285 hits <LI>4/9/2009: 93 hits <LI>4/28/2009: 184 hits <LI>4/30/2009: 195 hits <LI>5/7/2009: 184 hits <LI>5/21/2009: 167 hits <LI>6/5/2009: 99 hits (one year ago) <LI>7/8/2009: 170 hits <LI>7/22/2009: 177 hits <LI>7/29/2009: 189 hits <LI>8/14/2009: 169 hits <LI>8/20/2009: 168 hits <LI>8/26/2009: 168 hits <LI>9/2/2009: 147 hits <LI>10/13/2009: 158 hits <LI>10/22/2009: 208 hits <LI>10/29/2009: 246 hits <LI>11/3/2009: 176 hits <LI>11/17/2009: 133 hits <LI>11/24/2009: 160 hits <LI>12/4/2009: 205 hits <LI>12/10/2009: 158 hits <LI>12/23/2009: 156 hits <LI>12/30/2009: 164 hits <LI>1/12/2010: 151 hits <LI>1/21/2010: 211 hits <LI>2/11/2010: 175 hits <LI>2/24/2010: 193 hits <LI>3/5/2010: 169 hits <LI>3/19/2010: 147 hits <LI>4/2/2010: 137 hits <LI>4/7/2010: 146 hits <LI>4/22/2010: 185 hits <LI>4/29/2010: 246 hits <LI>6/4/2010: 146 hits <LI>6/18/2010: 139 hits</LI></UL> <P>Although the "mania" appears to have subsided somewhat, or at least has stabilized, the phrase "<EM>since the Great Depression</EM>" clearly resonates, at least among journalists.</P> <P>One possibility for the stabilization is that the term resonates enough that the media is more than happy to cling to a term that almost assures that readers will pay attention. How long will it continue to "resonate"? Maybe until the overall economy <EM>and</EM> employment are reliably rising month after month for at least six months, with unemployment declining reliably as well, and a significant portion of the eight million people put out of work by the recession are back to work. Obviously we are not there yet. As long as there is a reportable story about the economic hardships of this recession, the term will continue to be used.</P> <P>A&nbsp;fair amount of the usage at this stage is not comparison directly <EM>to</EM> The Great Depression, but&nbsp;simply using&nbsp;The Great Depression as a sort of <EM>bookend</EM> as in&nbsp;"<EM>since the Great Depression.</EM>" Still, the media is clearly getting a lot of mileage out of the term even if they are not adding much in the way of useful information or enlightenment.</P> <P>My current belief is that the media mania over&nbsp;"<STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>" will continue until the current recovery from the recession has advanced to the point where a monthly gain of employment is no longer a calming surprise and once again becomes taken for granted. We may need to see a decline of a million or more in unemployment and an even greater gain in employment before that happens. I do not expect that to occur in the near future. It could be a year or more, especially since initial unemployment claims remain firmly elevated above typical recessionary levels.</P> <P>Personally, I believe that even though we are into a <EM>modest recovery</EM> overall for the economy, on the labor front we are in a <EM>mini-depression</EM>. Even though employment will begin to recover and resume growth soon, the bulk of the <EM>eight million</EM> people who lost jobs over the past two years will remain jobless for several years to come. It may take five to ten years before the bulk of those people are finally back in mainstream employment.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-2075588364881966010?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-3914624327566218392010-06-04T17:15:00.001-04:002010-06-04T17:15:20.215-04:00<P>I am endeavoring to track the current media mania of attempting to draw parallels between the current economic situation and <STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>. I am doing this by using <A href='http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&amp;um=1&amp;tab=bn&amp;scoring=n&amp;q="the+great+depression"&amp;btnG=Search+News'>Google News</A> to count the total number of "news" references to the phrase "The Great Depression" in the previous 24 hours. I have been doing this for just over a year now.</P> <UL> <LI>1/10/2009: 411 hits <LI>1/30/2009: 319 hits <LI>2/6/2009: 308 hits <LI>2/25/2009:&nbsp;389 hits <LI>3/10/2009: 306 hits <LI>3/24/2009: 285 hits <LI>4/9/2009: 93 hits <LI>4/28/2009: 184 hits <LI>4/30/2009: 195 hits <LI>5/7/2009: 184 hits <LI>5/21/2009: 167 hits <LI>6/5/2009: 99 hits (one year ago) <LI>7/8/2009: 170 hits <LI>7/22/2009: 177 hits <LI>7/29/2009: 189 hits <LI>8/14/2009: 169 hits <LI>8/20/2009: 168 hits <LI>8/26/2009: 168 hits <LI>9/2/2009: 147 hits <LI>10/13/2009: 158 hits <LI>10/22/2009: 208 hits <LI>10/29/2009: 246 hits <LI>11/3/2009: 176 hits <LI>11/17/2009: 133 hits <LI>11/24/2009: 160 hits <LI>12/4/2009: 205 hits <LI>12/10/2009: 158 hits <LI>12/23/2009: 156 hits <LI>12/30/2009: 164 hits <LI>1/12/2010: 151 hits <LI>1/21/2010: 211 hits <LI>2/11/2010: 175 hits <LI>2/24/2010: 193 hits <LI>3/5/2010: 169 hits <LI>3/19/2010: 147 hits <LI>4/2/2010: 137 hits <LI>4/7/2010: 146 hits <LI>4/22/2010: 185 hits <LI>4/29/2010: 246 hits <LI>6/4/2010: 146 hits</LI></UL> <P>Although the "mania" appears to have subsided somewhat, or at least has stabilized, the phrase "<EM>since the Great Depression</EM>" clearly resonates, at least among journalists.</P> <P>One possibility for the stabilization is that the term resonates enough that the media is more than happy to cling to a term that almost assures that readers will pay attention. How long will it continue to "resonate"? Maybe until the overall economy <EM>and</EM> employment are reliably rising month after month for at least six months.</P> <P>A&nbsp;fair amount of the usage at this stage is not comparison directly <EM>to</EM> The Great Depression, but&nbsp;simply using&nbsp;The Great Depression as a sort of <EM>bookend</EM> as in&nbsp;"<EM>since the Great Depression.</EM>" Still, the media is clearly getting a lot of mileage out of the term even if they are not adding much in the way of useful information or enlightenment.</P> <P>My current belief is that the media mania over&nbsp;"<STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>" will continue until the current recovery from the recession has advanced to the point where a monthly gain of employment is no longer a calming surprise and once again becomes taken for granted. We may need to see a decline of a million or more in unemployment and an even greater gain in employment before that happens. I do not expect that to occur in the near future. It could be a year or more, especially since initial unemployment claims remain firmly elevated above typical recessionary levels.</P> <P>Personally, I believe that even though we are into a <EM>modest recovery</EM> overall for the economy, on the labor front we are in a <EM>mini-depression</EM>. Even though employment will begin to recover and resume growth soon, the bulk of the <EM>eight million</EM> people who lost jobs over the past two years will remain jobless for several years to come. It may take five to ten years before the bulk of those people are finally back in mainstream employment.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-391462432756621839?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-6626184593950083062010-04-29T18:08:00.001-04:002010-04-29T18:08:58.090-04:00<P>I am endeavoring to track the current media mania of attempting to draw parallels between the current economic situation and <STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>. I am doing this by using <A href='http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&amp;um=1&amp;tab=bn&amp;scoring=n&amp;q="the+great+depression"&amp;btnG=Search+News'>Google News</A> to count the total number of "news" references to the phrase "The Great Depression" in the previous 24 hours. I have been doing this for just over a year now.</P> <UL> <LI>1/10/2009: 411 hits <LI>1/30/2009: 319 hits <LI>2/6/2009: 308 hits <LI>2/25/2009:&nbsp;389 hits <LI>3/10/2009: 306 hits <LI>3/24/2009: 285 hits <LI>4/9/2009: 93 hits <LI>4/28/2009: 184 hits (one year ago) <LI>4/30/2009: 195 hits <LI>5/7/2009: 184 hits <LI>5/21/2009: 167 hits <LI>6/5/2009: 99 hits <LI>7/8/2009: 170 hits <LI>7/22/2009: 177 hits <LI>7/29/2009: 189 hits <LI>8/14/2009: 169 hits <LI>8/20/2009: 168 hits <LI>8/26/2009: 168 hits <LI>9/2/2009: 147 hits <LI>10/13/2009: 158 hits <LI>10/22/2009: 208 hits <LI>10/29/2009: 246 hits <LI>11/3/2009: 176 hits <LI>11/17/2009: 133 hits <LI>11/24/2009: 160 hits <LI>12/4/2009: 205 hits <LI>12/10/2009: 158 hits <LI>12/23/2009: 156 hits <LI>12/30/2009: 164 hits <LI>1/12/2010: 151 hits <LI>1/21/2010: 211 hits <LI>2/11/2010: 175 hits <LI>2/24/2010: 193 hits <LI>3/5/2010: 169 hits <LI>3/19/2010: 147 hits <LI>4/2/2010: 137 hits <LI>4/7/2010: 146 hits <LI>4/22/2010: 185 hits <LI>4/29/2010: 246 hits</LI></UL> <P>Three&nbsp;weeks ago&nbsp;was a little special in that we got the first significant gain in jobs since the recession began. Further, the head of the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)&nbsp;committee that dates the start and end of recessions stated that "<EM>I would say 'pretty clear' is a good description</EM>" for whether the recession has ended. Another member of that committee stated that "<EM>Speaking personally, it now seems <STRONG>very clear that the recession has ended</STRONG></EM>."&nbsp;The committee may need a few more months to formally mark the end of the recession with definiteive certainty, but the writing is clearly on the wall. But, please note that the ending of a recession says nothing about the path or rate of the economic recovery.</P> <P>Although the "mania" appears to have subsided somewhat, or at least has stabilized, the phrase "<EM>since the Great Depression</EM>" clearly resonates.</P> <P>One possibility for the stabilization is that the term resonates enough that the media is more than happy to cling to a term that almost assures that readers will pay attention. How long will it continue to "resonate"? Maybe until the overall economy <EM>and</EM> employment are reliably rising month after month for at least six months.</P> <P>A&nbsp;fair amount of the usage at this stage is not comparison directly <EM>to</EM> The Great Depression, but&nbsp;simply using&nbsp;The Great Depression as a sort of <EM>bookend</EM> as in&nbsp;"<EM>since the Great Depression.</EM>" Still, the media is clearly getting a lot of mileage out of the term even if they are not adding much in the way of useful information or enlightenment.</P> <P>My current belief is that the media mania over&nbsp;"<STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>" will continue until the current recovery from the recession has advanced to the point where a monthly gain of employment is no longer a calming surprise and once again becomes taken for granted. We may need to see a decline of a million or more in unemployment and an even greater gain in employment before that happens. I do not expect that to occur in the near future. It could be a year or more, especially since initial unemployment claims remain firmly elevated above typical recessionary levels.</P> <P>Personally, I believe that even though we are into a <EM>modest recovery</EM> overall for the economy, on the labor front we are in a <EM>mini-depression</EM>. Even though employment will begin to recover and resume growth soon, the bulk of the <EM>eight million</EM> people who lost jobs over the past two years will remain jobless for several years to come. It may take five to ten years before the bulk of those people are finally back in mainstream employment.</P> <P>Incidentally, unemployment actually <EM>rose</EM> by about 134,000 in March despite the <EM>net</EM>&nbsp;gain in payroll jobs. That is a measure of how deep and pervasive the <EM><STRONG>mini-depression</STRONG></EM> really is.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-662618459395008306?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-51680661925956986862010-04-22T15:06:00.001-04:002010-04-22T15:06:27.997-04:00<P>I am endeavoring to track the current media mania of attempting to draw parallels between the current economic situation and <STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>. I am doing this by using <A href='http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&amp;um=1&amp;tab=bn&amp;scoring=n&amp;q="the+great+depression"&amp;btnG=Search+News'>Google News</A> to count the total number of "news" references to the phrase "The Great Depression" in the previous 24 hours. I have been doing this for just over a year now.</P> <UL> <LI>1/10/2009: 411 hits <LI>1/30/2009: 319 hits <LI>2/6/2009: 308 hits <LI>2/25/2009:&nbsp;389 hits <LI>3/10/2009: 306 hits <LI>3/24/2009: 285 hits <LI>4/9/2009: 93 hits (one year ago) <LI>4/28/2009: 184 hits <LI>4/30/2009: 195 hits <LI>5/7/2009: 184 hits <LI>5/21/2009: 167 hits <LI>6/5/2009: 99 hits <LI>7/8/2009: 170 hits <LI>7/22/2009: 177 hits <LI>7/29/2009: 189 hits <LI>8/14/2009: 169 hits <LI>8/20/2009: 168 hits <LI>8/26/2009: 168 hits <LI>9/2/2009: 147 hits <LI>10/13/2009: 158 hits <LI>10/22/2009: 208 hits <LI>10/29/2009: 246 hits <LI>11/3/2009: 176 hits <LI>11/17/2009: 133 hits <LI>11/24/2009: 160 hits <LI>12/4/2009: 205 hits <LI>12/10/2009: 158 hits <LI>12/23/2009: 156 hits <LI>12/30/2009: 164 hits <LI>1/12/2010: 151 hits <LI>1/21/2010: 211 hits <LI>2/11/2010: 175 hits <LI>2/24/2010: 193 hits <LI>3/5/2010: 169 hits <LI>3/19/2010: 147 hits <LI>4/2/2010: 137 hits <LI>4/7/2010: 146 hits <LI>4/22/2010: 185 hits</LI></UL> <P>Two weeks ago&nbsp;was a little special in that we got the first significant gain in jobs since the recession began. Further, the head of the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)&nbsp;committee that dates the start and end of recessions stated that "<EM>I would say 'pretty clear' is a good description</EM>" for whether the recession has ended. Another member of that committee stated that "<EM>Speaking personally, it now seems <STRONG>very clear that the recession has ended</STRONG></EM>."&nbsp;The committee may need a few more months to formally mark the end of the recession with definiteive certainty, but the writing is clearly on the wall. But, please note that the ending of a recession says nothing about the path or rate of the economic recovery.</P> <P>Although the "mania" appears to have subsided somewhat, or at least has stabilized, the phrase "<EM>since the Great Depression</EM>" clearly resonates.</P> <P>One possibility for the stabilization is that the term resonates enough that the media is more than happy to cling to a term that almost assures that readers will pay attention. How long will it continue to "resonate"? Maybe until the overall economy <EM>and</EM> employment are reliably rising month after month for at least six months.</P> <P>A&nbsp;fair amount of the usage at this stage is not comparison directly <EM>to</EM> The Great Depression, but&nbsp;simply using&nbsp;The Great Depression as a sort of <EM>bookend</EM> as in&nbsp;"<EM>since the Great Depression.</EM>" Still, the media is clearly getting a lot of mileage out of the term even if they are not adding much in the way of useful information or enlightenment.</P> <P>My current belief is that the media mania over&nbsp;"<STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>" will continue until the current recovery from the recession has advanced to the point where a monthly gain of employment is no longer a calming surprise and once again becomes taken for granted. We may need to see a decline of a million or more in unemployment and an even greater gain in employment before that happens. I do not expect that to occur in the near future. It could be a year or more, especially since initial unemployment claims remain firmly elevated above typical recessionary levels.</P> <P>Personally, I believe that even though we are into a <EM>modest recovery</EM> overall for the economy, on the labor front we are in a <EM>mini-depression</EM>. Even though employment will begin to recover and resume growth soon, the bulk of the <EM>eight million</EM> people who lost jobs over the past two years will remain jobless for several years to come. It may take five to ten years before the bulk of those people are finally back in mainstream employment.</P> <P>Incidentally, unemployment actually <EM>rose</EM> by about 134,000 in March despite the <EM>net</EM>&nbsp;gain in payroll jobs. That is a measure of how deep and pervasive the <EM><STRONG>mini-depression</STRONG></EM> really is.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-5168066192595698686?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-69162743353556610932010-04-07T10:48:00.001-04:002010-04-07T10:48:29.615-04:00<P>I am endeavoring to track the current media mania of attempting to draw parallels between the current economic situation and <STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>. I am doing this by using <A href='http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&amp;um=1&amp;tab=bn&amp;scoring=n&amp;q="the+great+depression"&amp;btnG=Search+News'>Google News</A> to count the total number of "news" references to the phrase "The Great Depression" in the previous 24 hours. I have been doing this for just over a year now.</P> <UL> <LI>1/10/2009: 411 hits <LI>1/30/2009: 319 hits <LI>2/6/2009: 308 hits <LI>2/25/2009:&nbsp;389 hits <LI>3/10/2009: 306 hits <LI>3/24/2009: 285 hits <LI>4/9/2009: 93 hits (one year ago) <LI>4/28/2009: 184 hits <LI>4/30/2009: 195 hits <LI>5/7/2009: 184 hits <LI>5/21/2009: 167 hits <LI>6/5/2009: 99 hits <LI>7/8/2009: 170 hits <LI>7/22/2009: 177 hits <LI>7/29/2009: 189 hits <LI>8/14/2009: 169 hits <LI>8/20/2009: 168 hits <LI>8/26/2009: 168 hits <LI>9/2/2009: 147 hits <LI>10/13/2009: 158 hits <LI>10/22/2009: 208 hits <LI>10/29/2009: 246 hits <LI>11/3/2009: 176 hits <LI>11/17/2009: 133 hits <LI>11/24/2009: 160 hits <LI>12/4/2009: 205 hits <LI>12/10/2009: 158 hits <LI>12/23/2009: 156 hits <LI>12/30/2009: 164 hits <LI>1/12/2010: 151 hits <LI>1/21/2010: 211 hits <LI>2/11/2010: 175 hits <LI>2/24/2010: 193 hits <LI>3/5/2010: 169 hits <LI>3/19/2010: 147 hits <LI>4/2/2010: 137 hits <LI>4/7/2010: 146 hits</LI></UL> <P>Last week was a little special in that we got the first significant gain in jobs since the recession began. Further, the head of the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)&nbsp;committee that dates the start and end of recessions stated that "<EM>I would say 'pretty clear' is a good description</EM>" for whether the recession has ended. Another member of that committee stated that "<EM>Speaking personally, it now seems <STRONG>very clear that the recession has ended</STRONG></EM>."&nbsp;The committee may need a few more months to formally mark the end of the recession with definiteive certainty, but the writing is clearly on the wall. But, please note that the ending of a recession says nothing about the path or rate of the economic recovery.</P> <P>Although the "mania" appears to have subsided somewhat, or at least has stabilized, the phrase "<EM>since the Great Depression</EM>" clearly resonates.</P> <P>One possibility for the stabilization is that the term resonates enough that the media is more than happy to cling to a term that almost assures that readers will pay attention. How long will it continue to "resonate"? Maybe until the overall economy <EM>and</EM> employment are reliably rising month after month for at least six months.</P> <P>A&nbsp;fair amount of the usage at this stage is not comparison directly <EM>to</EM> The Great Depression, but&nbsp;simply using&nbsp;The Great Depression as a sort of <EM>bookend</EM> as in&nbsp;"<EM>since the Great Depression.</EM>" Still, the media is clearly getting a lot of mileage out of the term even if they are not adding much in the way of useful information or enlightenment.</P> <P>My current belief is that the media mania over&nbsp;"<STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>" will continue until the current recovery from the recession has advanced to the point where a monthly gain of employment is no longer a calming surprise and once again becomes taken for granted. We may need to see a decline of a million or more in unemployment and an even greater gain in employment before that happens. I do not expect that to occur in the near future. It could be a year or more, especially since initial unemployment claims remain firmly elevated above typical recessionary levels.</P> <P>Personally, I believe that even though we are into a <EM>modest recovery</EM> overall for the economy, on the labor front we are in a <EM>mini-depression</EM>. Even though employment will begin to recover and resume growth soon, the bulk of the <EM>eight million</EM> people who lost jobs over the past two years will remain jobless for several years to come. It may take five to ten years before the bulk of those people are finally back in mainstream employment.</P> <P>Incidentally, unemployment actually <EM>rose</EM> by about 134,000 in March despite the <EM>net</EM>&nbsp;gain in payroll jobs. That is a measure of how deep and pervasive the mini-depression really is.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-6916274335355661093?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-60872544640556129222010-04-02T18:04:00.001-04:002010-04-02T18:04:49.375-04:00<P>I am endeavoring to track the current media mania of attempting to draw parallels between the current economic situation and <STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>. I am doing this by using <A href='http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&amp;um=1&amp;tab=bn&amp;scoring=n&amp;q="the+great+depression"&amp;btnG=Search+News'>Google News</A> to count the total number of "news" references to the phrase "The Great Depression" in the previous 24 hours. I have been doing this for just over a year now.</P> <UL> <LI>1/10/2009: 411 hits <LI>1/30/2009: 319 hits <LI>2/6/2009: 308 hits <LI>2/25/2009:&nbsp;389 hits <LI>3/10/2009: 306 hits <LI>3/24/2009: 285 hits <LI>4/9/2009: 93 hits (one year ago) <LI>4/28/2009: 184 hits <LI>4/30/2009: 195 hits <LI>5/7/2009: 184 hits <LI>5/21/2009: 167 hits <LI>6/5/2009: 99 hits <LI>7/8/2009: 170 hits <LI>7/22/2009: 177 hits <LI>7/29/2009: 189 hits <LI>8/14/2009: 169 hits <LI>8/20/2009: 168 hits <LI>8/26/2009: 168 hits <LI>9/2/2009: 147 hits <LI>10/13/2009: 158 hits <LI>10/22/2009: 208 hits <LI>10/29/2009: 246 hits <LI>11/3/2009: 176 hits <LI>11/17/2009: 133 hits <LI>11/24/2009: 160 hits <LI>12/4/2009: 205 hits <LI>12/10/2009: 158 hits <LI>12/23/2009: 156 hits <LI>12/30/2009: 164 hits <LI>1/12/2010: 151 hits <LI>1/21/2010: 211 hits <LI>2/11/2010: 175 hits <LI>2/24/2010: 193 hits <LI>3/5/2010: 169 hits <LI>3/19/2010: 147 hits <LI>4/2/2010: 137 hits</LI></UL> <P>Today was a little special in that we got the first significant gain in jobs since the recession began. Further, the head of the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)&nbsp;committee that dates the start and end of recessions stated that "<EM>I would say 'pretty clear' is a good description</EM>" for whether the recession has ended. Another member of that committee stated that "<EM>Speaking personally, it now seems <STRONG>very clear that the recession has ended</STRONG></EM>."&nbsp;The committee may need a few more months to formally mark the end of the recession with definiteive certainty, but the writing is clearly on the wall. But, please note that the ending of a recession says nothing about the path or rate of the economic recovery.</P> <P>Although the "mania" appears to have subsided somewhat, or at least has stabilized, the phrase "<EM>since the Great Depression</EM>" clearly resonates.</P> <P>One possibility for the stabilization is that the term resonates enough that the media is more than happy to cling to a term that almost assures that readers will pay attention. How long will it continue to "resonate"? Maybe until the overall economy <EM>and</EM> employment are reliably rising month after month for at least six months.</P> <P>A&nbsp;fair amount of the usage at this stage is not comparison directly <EM>to</EM> The Great Depression, but&nbsp;simply using&nbsp;The Great Depression as a sort of <EM>bookend</EM> as in&nbsp;"<EM>since the Great Depression.</EM>" Still, the media is clearly getting a lot of mileage out of the term even if they are not adding much in the way of useful information or enlightenment.</P> <P>My current belief is that the media mania over&nbsp;"<STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>" will continue until the current recovery from the recession has advanced to the point where a monthly gain of employment is no longer a calming surprise and once again becomes taken for granted. We may need to see a decline of a million or more in unemployment and an even greater gain in employment before that happens. I do not expect that to occur in the near future. It could be a year or more, especially since initial unemployment claims remain firmly elevated above typical recessionary levels.</P> <P>Personally, I believe that even though we are into a <EM>modest recovery</EM> overall for the economy, on the labor front we are in a <EM>mini-depression</EM>. Even though employment will begin to recover and resume growth soon, the bulk of the <EM>eight million</EM> people who lost jobs over the past two years will remain jobless for several years to come. It may take five to ten years before the bulk of those people are finally back in mainstream employment.</P> <P>Incidentally, unemployment actually <EM>rose</EM> by about 134,000 in March despite the <EM>net</EM>&nbsp;gain in payroll jobs. That is a measure of how deep and pervasive the mini-depression really is.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-6087254464055612922?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-24877826874088684052010-03-19T10:51:00.001-04:002010-03-19T10:51:32.172-04:00<P>I am endeavoring to track the current media mania of attempting to draw parallels between the current economic situation and <STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>. I am doing this by using <A href='http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&amp;um=1&amp;tab=bn&amp;scoring=n&amp;q="the+great+depression"&amp;btnG=Search+News'>Google News</A> to count the total number of "news" references to the phrase "The Great Depression" in the previous 24 hours. I have been doing this for just over a year now.</P> <UL> <LI>1/10/2009: 411 hits <LI>1/30/2009: 319 hits <LI>2/6/2009: 308 hits <LI>2/25/2009:&nbsp;389 hits <LI>3/10/2009: 306 hits (one year ago)&nbsp; <LI>3/24/2009: 285 hits <LI>4/9/2009: 93 hits <LI>4/28/2009: 184 hits <LI>4/30/2009: 195 hits <LI>5/7/2009: 184 hits <LI>5/21/2009: 167 hits <LI>6/5/2009: 99 hits <LI>7/8/2009: 170 hits <LI>7/22/2009: 177 hits <LI>7/29/2009: 189 hits <LI>8/14/2009: 169 hits <LI>8/20/2009: 168 hits <LI>8/26/2009: 168 hits <LI>9/2/2009: 147 hits <LI>10/13/2009: 158 hits <LI>10/22/2009: 208 hits <LI>10/29/2009: 246 hits <LI>11/3/2009: 176 hits <LI>11/17/2009: 133 hits <LI>11/24/2009: 160 hits <LI>12/4/2009: 205 hits <LI>12/10/2009: 158 hits <LI>12/23/2009: 156 hits <LI>12/30/2009: 164 hits <LI>1/12/2010: 151 hits <LI>1/21/2010: 211 hits <LI>2/11/2010: 175 hits <LI>2/24/2010: 193 hits <LI>3/5/2010: 169 hits <LI>3/19/2010: 147 hits</LI></UL> <P>Although the "mania" appears to have subsided somewhat, or at least has stabilized, the phrase "<EM>since the Great Depression</EM>" clearly resonates.</P> <P>One possibility for the stabilization is that the term resonates enough that the media is more than happy to cling to a term that almost assures that readers will pay attention. How long will it continue to "resonate"? Maybe until the overall economy <EM>and</EM> employment are reliably rising month after month for at least six months.</P> <P>A&nbsp;fair amount of the usage at this stage is not comparison directly <EM>to</EM> The Great Depression, but&nbsp;simply using&nbsp;The Great Depression as a sort of <EM>bookend</EM> as in&nbsp;"<EM>since the Great Depression.</EM>" Still, the media is clearly getting a lot of mileage out of the term even if they are not adding much in the way of useful information or enlightenment.</P> <P>My current belief is that the media mania over&nbsp;"<STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>" will continue until the current recovery from the recession has advanced to the point where a monthly gain of employment is no longer a calming surprise and once again becomes taken for granted. We may need to see a decline of a million or more in unemployment and an even greater gain in employment before that happens. I do not expect that to occur in the near future. It could be a year or more, especially since initial unemployment claims remain firmly elevated above typical recessionary levels.</P> <P>Personally, I believe that even though we are into a <EM>modest recovery</EM> overall for the economy, on the labor front we are in a <EM>mini-depression</EM>. Even though employment will begin to recover and resume growth soon, the bulk of the <EM>eight million</EM> people who lost jobs over the past two years will remain jobless for several years to come. It may take five to ten years before the bulk of those people are finally back in mainstream employment.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-2487782687408868405?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-3883306865063825082010-03-05T15:59:00.001-05:002010-03-05T15:59:59.684-05:00<P>I am endeavoring to track the current media mania of attempting to draw parallels between the current economic situation and <STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>. I am doing this by using <A href='http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&amp;um=1&amp;tab=bn&amp;scoring=n&amp;q="the+great+depression"&amp;btnG=Search+News'>Google News</A> to count the total number of "news" references to the phrase "The Great Depression" in the previous 24 hours. I have been doing this for just over a year now.</P> <UL> <LI>1/10/2009: 411 hits <LI>1/30/2009: 319 hits <LI>2/6/2009: 308 hits <LI>2/25/2009:&nbsp;389 hits (one year ago) <LI>3/10/2009: 306 hits <LI>3/24/2009: 285 hits <LI>4/9/2009: 93 hits <LI>4/28/2009: 184 hits <LI>4/30/2009: 195 hits <LI>5/7/2009: 184 hits <LI>5/21/2009: 167 hits <LI>6/5/2009: 99 hits <LI>7/8/2009: 170 hits <LI>7/22/2009: 177 hits <LI>7/29/2009: 189 hits <LI>8/14/2009: 169 hits <LI>8/20/2009: 168 hits <LI>8/26/2009: 168 hits <LI>9/2/2009: 147 hits <LI>10/13/2009: 158 hits <LI>10/22/2009: 208 hits <LI>10/29/2009: 246 hits <LI>11/3/2009: 176 hits <LI>11/17/2009: 133 hits <LI>11/24/2009: 160 hits <LI>12/4/2009: 205 hits <LI>12/10/2009: 158 hits <LI>12/23/2009: 156 hits <LI>12/30/2009: 164 hits <LI>1/12/2010: 151 hits <LI>1/21/2010: 211 hits <LI>2/11/2010: 175 hits <LI>2/24/2010: 193 hits <LI>3/5/2010: 169 hits</LI></UL> <P>Although the "mania" appears to have subsided somewhat, or at least has stabilized, the phrase "<EM>since the Great Depression</EM>" clearly resonates.</P> <P>One possibility for the stabilization is that the term resonates enough that the media is more than happy to cling to a term that almost assures that readers will pay attention. How long will it continue to "resonate"? Maybe until the overall economy <EM>and</EM> employment are reliably rising month after month for at least six months.</P> <P>A&nbsp;fair amount of the usage at this stage is not comparison directly <EM>to</EM> The Great Depression, but&nbsp;simply using&nbsp;The Great Depression as a sort of <EM>bookend</EM> as in&nbsp;"<EM>since the Great Depression.</EM>" Still, the media is clearly getting a lot of mileage out of the term even if they are not adding much in the way of useful information or enlightenment.</P> <P>My current belief is that the media mania over&nbsp;"<STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>" will continue until the current recovery from the recession has advanced to the point where a monthly gain of employment is no longer a calming surprise and once again becomes taken for granted. We may need to see a decline of a million or more in unemployment and an even greater gain in employment before that happens. I do not expect that to occur in the near future. It could be a year or more, especially since initial unemployment claims remain firmly elevated above typical recessionary levels.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-388330686506382508?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-68542456774809757562010-02-24T11:16:00.001-05:002010-02-24T11:16:27.824-05:00<P>I am endeavoring to track the current media mania of attempting to draw parallels between the current economic situation and <STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>. I am doing this by using <A href='http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&amp;um=1&amp;tab=bn&amp;scoring=n&amp;q="the+great+depression"&amp;btnG=Search+News'>Google News</A> to count the total number of "news" references to the phrase "The Great Depression" in the previous 24 hours. I have been doing this for just over a year now.</P> <UL> <LI>1/10/2009: 411 hits <LI>1/30/2009: 319 hits <LI>2/6/2009: 308 hits <LI>2/25/2009:&nbsp;389 hits (one year ago) <LI>3/10/2009: 306 hits <LI>3/24/2009: 285 hits <LI>4/9/2009: 93 hits <LI>4/28/2009: 184 hits <LI>4/30/2009: 195 hits <LI>5/7/2009: 184 hits <LI>5/21/2009: 167 hits <LI>6/5/2009: 99 hits <LI>7/8/2009: 170 hits <LI>7/22/2009: 177 hits <LI>7/29/2009: 189 hits <LI>8/14/2009: 169 hits <LI>8/20/2009: 168 hits <LI>8/26/2009: 168 hits <LI>9/2/2009: 147 hits <LI>10/13/2009: 158 hits <LI>10/22/2009: 208 hits <LI>10/29/2009: 246 hits <LI>11/3/2009: 176 hits <LI>11/17/2009: 133 hits <LI>11/24/2009: 160 hits <LI>12/4/2009: 205 hits <LI>12/10/2009: 158 hits <LI>12/23/2009: 156 hits <LI>12/30/2009: 164 hits <LI>1/12/2010: 151 hits <LI>1/21/2010: 211 hits <LI>2/11/2010: 175 hits <LI>2/24/2010: 193 hits</LI></UL> <P>Although the "mania" appears to have subsided somewhat, or at least has stabilized, the phrase "since the Great Depression" clearly resonates.</P> <P>One possibility for the stabilization is that the term resonates enough that the media is more than happy to cling to a term that almost assures that readers will pay attention. How long will it continue to "resonate"? Maybe until the overall economy <EM>and</EM> employment are reliably rising month after month for at least six months.</P> <P>A&nbsp;fair amount of the usage at this stage is not comparison directly <EM>to</EM> The Great Depression, but&nbsp;simply using&nbsp;The Great Depression as a sort of <EM>bookend</EM> as in&nbsp;"<EM>since the Great Depression.</EM>" Still, the media is clearly getting a lot of mileage out of the term even if they are not adding much in the way of useful information or enlightenment.</P> <P>My current belief is that the media mania over&nbsp;"<STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>" will continue until the current recovery from the recession has advanced to the point where a monthly gain of employment is no longer a calming surprise and once again becomes taken for granted. We may need to see a decline of a million or more in unemployment and an even greater gain in employment before that happens. I do not expect that to occur in the near future. It could be a year or more, especially since initial unemployment claims remain firmly elevated above typical recessionary levels.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-6854245677480975756?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-79867948576133430182010-02-11T09:08:00.001-05:002010-02-11T09:08:30.395-05:00<P>I am endeavoring to track the current media mania of attempting to draw parallels between the current economic situation and <STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>. I am doing this by using <A href='http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&amp;um=1&amp;tab=bn&amp;scoring=n&amp;q="the+great+depression"&amp;btnG=Search+News'>Google News</A> to count the total number of "news" references to the phrase "The Great Depression" in the previous 24 hours. I have been doing this for just over a year now.</P> <UL> <LI>1/10/2009: 411 hits (one year ago) <LI>1/30/2009: 319 hits <LI>2/6/2009: 308 hits <LI>2/25/2009:&nbsp;389 hits <LI>3/10/2009: 306 hits <LI>3/24/2009: 285 hits <LI>4/9/2009: 93 hits <LI>4/28/2009: 184 hits <LI>4/30/2009: 195 hits <LI>5/7/2009: 184 hits <LI>5/21/2009: 167 hits <LI>6/5/2009: 99 hits <LI>7/8/2009: 170 hits <LI>7/22/2009: 177 hits <LI>7/29/2009: 189 hits <LI>8/14/2009: 169 hits <LI>8/20/2009: 168 hits <LI>8/26/2009: 168 hits <LI>9/2/2009: 147 hits <LI>10/13/2009: 158 hits <LI>10/22/2009: 208 hits <LI>10/29/2009: 246 hits <LI>11/3/2009: 176 hits <LI>11/17/2009: 133 hits <LI>11/24/2009: 160 hits <LI>12/4/2009: 205 hits <LI>12/10/2009: 158 hits <LI>12/23/2009: 156 hits <LI>12/30/2009: 164 hits <LI>1/12/2010: 151 hits <LI>1/21/2010: 211 hits <LI>2/11/2010: 175 hits</LI></UL> <P>Although the "mania" appears to have subsided somewhat, or at least has stabilized, the phrase "since the Great Depression" clearly resonates.</P> <P>One possibility for the stabilization is that the term resonates enough that the media is more than happy to cling to a term that almost assures that readers will pay attention. How long will it continue to "resonate"? Maybe until the overall economy <EM>and</EM> employment are reliably rising month after month for at least six months.</P> <P>A&nbsp;fair amount of the usage at this stage is not comparison directly <EM>to</EM> The Great Depression, but&nbsp;simply using&nbsp;The Great Depression as a sort of <EM>bookend</EM> as in&nbsp;"<EM>since the Great Depression.</EM>" Still, the media is clearly getting a lot of mileage out of the term even if they are not adding much in the way of useful information or enlightenment.</P> <P>My current belief is that the media mania over&nbsp;"<STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>" will continue until the current recovery from the recession has advanced to the point where a monthly gain of employment is no longer a calming surprise and once again becomes taken for granted. We may need to see a decline of a million or more in unemployment and an even greater gain in employment before that happens. I do not expect that to occur in the near future. It could be a year or more, especially since initial unemployment claims remain elevated above typical recessionary levels.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-7986794857613343018?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-52605967247663970022010-01-21T06:50:00.001-05:002010-01-21T06:50:18.316-05:00<P>I am endeavoring to track the current media mania of attempting to draw parallels between the current economic situation and <STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>. I am doing this by using <A href='http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&amp;um=1&amp;tab=bn&amp;scoring=n&amp;q="the+great+depression"&amp;btnG=Search+News'>Google News</A> to count the total number of "news" references to the phrase "The Great Depression" in the previous 24 hours. I have been doing this for just over a year now.</P> <UL> <LI>1/10/2009: 411 hits (one year ago) <LI>1/30/2009: 319 hits <LI>2/6/2009: 308 hits <LI>2/25/2009:&nbsp;389 hits <LI>3/10/2009: 306 hits <LI>3/24/2009: 285 hits <LI>4/9/2009: 93 hits <LI>4/28/2009: 184 hits <LI>4/30/2009: 195 hits <LI>5/7/2009: 184 hits <LI>5/21/2009: 167 hits <LI>6/5/2009: 99 hits <LI>7/8/2009: 170 hits <LI>7/22/2009: 177 hits <LI>7/29/2009: 189 hits <LI>8/14/2009: 169 hits <LI>8/20/2009: 168 hits <LI>8/26/2009: 168 hits <LI>9/2/2009: 147 hits <LI>10/13/2009: 158 hits <LI>10/22/2009: 208 hits <LI>10/29/2009: 246 hits <LI>11/3/2009: 176 hits <LI>11/17/2009: 133 hits <LI>11/24/2009: 160 hits <LI>12/4/2009: 205 hits <LI>12/10/2009: 158 hits <LI>12/23/2009: 156 hits <LI>12/30/2009: 164 hits <LI>1/12/2010: 151 hits <LI>1/21/2010: 211 hits</LI></UL> <P>Although the "mania" appears to have subsided somewhat, or at least has stabilized, the phrase "since the Great Depression" clearly resonates.</P> <P>One possibility for the stabilization is that the term resonates enough that the media is more than happy to cling to a term that almost assures that readers will pay attention. How long will it continue to "resonate"? Maybe until the overall economy <EM>and</EM> employment are reliably rising month after month for at least six months.</P> <P>A&nbsp;fair amount of the usage at this stage is not comparison directly <EM>to</EM> The Great Depression, but&nbsp;simply using&nbsp;The Great Depression as a sort of <EM>bookend</EM> as in&nbsp;"<EM>since the Great Depression.</EM>" Still, the media is clearly getting a lot of mileage out of the term even if they are not adding much in the way of useful information or enlightenment.</P> <P>My current belief is that the media mania over&nbsp;"<STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>" will continue until the current recovery from the recession has advanced to the point where a monthly gain of employment is no longer a calming surprise and once again becomes taken for granted. We may need to see a decline of a million or more in unemployment and an even greater gain in employment before that happens.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-5260596724766397002?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-55158765063582809892010-01-12T14:47:00.000-05:002010-01-12T14:48:15.049-05:00<P>I am endeavoring to track the current media mania of attempting to draw parallels between the current economic situation and <STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>. I am doing this by using <A href='http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&amp;um=1&amp;tab=bn&amp;scoring=n&amp;q="the+great+depression"&amp;btnG=Search+News'>Google News</A> to count the total number of "news" references to the phrase "The Great Depression" in the previous 24 hours. I have been doing this for a year now.</P> <UL> <LI>1/10/2009: 411 hits (one year ago) <LI>1/30/2009: 319 hits <LI>2/6/2009: 308 hits <LI>2/25/2009:&nbsp;389 hits <LI>3/10/2009: 306 hits <LI>3/24/2009: 285 hits <LI>4/9/2009: 93 hits <LI>4/28/2009: 184 hits <LI>4/30/2009: 195 hits <LI>5/7/2009: 184 hits <LI>5/21/2009: 167 hits <LI>6/5/2009: 99 hits <LI>7/8/2009: 170 hits <LI>7/22/2009: 177 hits <LI>7/29/2009: 189 hits <LI>8/14/2009: 169 hits <LI>8/20/2009: 168 hits <LI>8/26/2009: 168 hits <LI>9/2/2009: 147 hits <LI>10/13/2009: 158 hits <LI>10/22/2009: 208 hits <LI>10/29/2009: 246 hits <LI>11/3/2009: 176 hits <LI>11/17/2009: 133 hits <LI>11/24/2009: 160 hits <LI>12/4/2009: 205 hits <LI>12/10/2009: 158 hits <LI>12/23/2009: 156 hits <LI>12/30/2009: 164 hits <LI>1/12/2010: 151 hits</LI></UL> <P>Now it is almost starting to look as though the "mania" is subsiding, at least a little. Whether a true trend is emerging remains to be seen.</P> <P>One possibility for the stabilization is that the term "resonates" and that the media is more than happy to cling to a term that almost assures that readers will pay attention. How long will it continue to "resonate"? Maybe until the overall economy <EM>and</EM> employment are reliably rising month after month for at least six months.</P> <P>A&nbsp;fair amount of the usage at this stage is not comparison directly <EM>to</EM> The Great Depression, but&nbsp;simply using&nbsp;The Great Depression as a sort of <EM>bookend</EM> as in&nbsp;"<EM>since the Great Depression.</EM>" Still, the media is clearly getting a lot of mileage out of the term even if they are not adding much in the way of useful information or enlightenment.</P> <P>My current belief is that the media mania over&nbsp;"<STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>" will continue until the current recovery from the recession has advanced to the point where a monthly gain of employment is no longer a calming surprise and once again becomes taken for granted. We may need to see a decline of a million or more in unemployment and an even greater gain in employment before that happens.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-5515876506358280989?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-1188906726660659072009-12-30T17:06:00.001-05:002009-12-30T17:06:48.045-05:00<P>I am endeavoring to track the current media mania of attempting to draw parallels between the current economic situation and <STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>. I am doing this by using <A href='http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&amp;um=1&amp;tab=bn&amp;scoring=n&amp;q="the+great+depression"&amp;btnG=Search+News'>Google News</A> to count the total number of "news" references to the phrase "The Great Depression" in the previous 24 hours.</P> <UL> <LI>1/10/2009: 411 hits <LI>1/30/2009: 319 hits <LI>2/6/2009: 308 hits <LI>2/25/2009:&nbsp;389 hits <LI>3/10/2009: 306 hits <LI>3/24/2009: 285 hits <LI>4/9/2009: 93 hits <LI>4/28/2009: 184 hits <LI>4/30/2009: 195 hits <LI>5/7/2009: 184 hits <LI>5/21/2009: 167 hits <LI>6/5/2009: 99 hits <LI>7/8/2009: 170 hits <LI>7/22/2009: 177 hits <LI>7/29/2009: 189 hits <LI>8/14/2009: 169 hits <LI>8/20/2009: 168 hits <LI>8/26/2009: 168 hits <LI>9/2/2009: 147 hits <LI>10/13/2009: 158 hits <LI>10/22/2009: 208 hits <LI>10/29/2009: 246 hits <LI>11/3/2009: 176 hits <LI>11/17/2009: 133 hits <LI>11/24/2009: 160 hits <LI>12/4/2009: 205 hits <LI>12/10/2009: 158 hits <LI>12/23/2009: 156 hits <LI>12/30/2009: 164 hits</LI></UL> <P>Now it is almost starting to look as though the "mania" is subsiding, at least a little. Whether a true trend is emerging remains to be seen.</P> <P>One possibility for the stabilization is that the term "resonates" and that the media is more than happy to cling to a term that almost assures that readers will pay attention. How long will it continue to "resonate"? Maybe until the overall economy <EM>and</EM> employment are reliably rising month after month for at least six months.</P> <P>A&nbsp;fair amount of the usage at this stage is not comparison directly <EM>to</EM> The Great Depression, but&nbsp;simply using&nbsp;The Great Depression as a sort of <EM>bookend</EM> as in&nbsp;"<EM>since the Great Depression.</EM>" Still, the media is clearly getting a lot of mileage out of the term even if they are not adding much in the way of useful information or enlightenment.</P> <P>My current belief is that the media mania over&nbsp;"<STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>" will continue until the current recovery from the recession has advanced to the point where a monthly gain of employment is no longer a calming surprise and once again becomes taken for granted. We may need to see a decline of a million or more in unemployment and an even greater gain in employment before that happens.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-118890672666065907?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-33827879736392593702009-12-23T17:35:00.001-05:002009-12-23T17:35:52.924-05:00<P>I am endeavoring to track the current media mania of attempting to draw parallels between the current economic situation and <STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>. I am doing this by using <A href='http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&amp;um=1&amp;tab=bn&amp;scoring=n&amp;q="the+great+depression"&amp;btnG=Search+News'>Google News</A> to count the total number of "news" references to the phrase "The Great Depression" in the previous 24 hours.</P> <UL> <LI>1/10/2009: 411 hits <LI>1/30/2009: 319 hits <LI>2/6/2009: 308 hits <LI>2/25/2009:&nbsp;389 hits <LI>3/10/2009: 306 hits <LI>3/24/2009: 285 hits <LI>4/9/2009: 93 hits <LI>4/28/2009: 184 hits <LI>4/30/2009: 195 hits <LI>5/7/2009: 184 hits <LI>5/21/2009: 167 hits <LI>6/5/2009: 99 hits <LI>7/8/2009: 170 hits <LI>7/22/2009: 177 hits <LI>7/29/2009: 189 hits <LI>8/14/2009: 169 hits <LI>8/20/2009: 168 hits <LI>8/26/2009: 168 hits <LI>9/2/2009: 147 hits <LI>10/13/2009: 158 hits <LI>10/22/2009: 208 hits <LI>10/29/2009: 246 hits <LI>11/3/2009: 176 hits <LI>11/17/2009: 133 hits <LI>11/24/2009: 160 hits <LI>12/4/2009: 205 hits <LI>12/10/2009: 158 hits <LI>12/23/2009: 156 hits</LI></UL> <P>Now it is almost starting to look as though the "mania" is subsiding, at least a little. Whether a true trend is emerging remains to be seen.</P> <P>One possibility for the stabilization is that the term "resonates" and that the media is more than happy to cling to a term that almost assures that readers will pay attention. How long will it continue to "resonate"? Maybe until the overall economy <EM>and</EM> employment are reliably rising month after month for at least six months.</P> <P>A&nbsp;fair amount of the usage at this stage is not comparison directly <EM>to</EM> The Great Depression, but&nbsp;simply using&nbsp;The Great Depression as a sort of <EM>bookend</EM> as in&nbsp;"<EM>since the Great Depression.</EM>" Still, the media is clearly getting a lot of mileage out of the term even if they are not adding much in the way of useful information or enlightenment.</P> <P>My current belief is that the media mania over&nbsp;"<STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>" will continue until the current recovery from the recession has advanced to the point where a monthly gain of employment is no longer a calming surprise and once again becomes taken for granted. We may need to see a decline of a million or more in unemployment and an even greater gain in employment before that happens.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-3382787973639259370?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-77692716891274372512009-12-10T17:08:00.000-05:002009-12-10T17:09:03.657-05:00<P>I am endeavoring to track the current media mania of attempting to draw parallels between the current economic situation and <STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>. I am doing this by using <A href='http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&amp;um=1&amp;tab=bn&amp;scoring=n&amp;q="the+great+depression"&amp;btnG=Search+News'>Google News</A> to count the total number of "news" references to the phrase "The Great Depression" in the previous 24 hours.</P> <UL> <LI>1/10/2009: 411 hits <LI>1/30/2009: 319 hits <LI>2/6/2009: 308 hits <LI>2/25/2009:&nbsp;389 hits <LI>3/10/2009: 306 hits <LI>3/24/2009: 285 hits <LI>4/9/2009: 93 hits <LI>4/28/2009: 184 hits <LI>4/30/2009: 195 hits <LI>5/7/2009: 184 hits <LI>5/21/2009: 167 hits <LI>6/5/2009: 99 hits <LI>7/8/2009: 170 hits <LI>7/22/2009: 177 hits <LI>7/29/2009: 189 hits <LI>8/14/2009: 169 hits <LI>8/20/2009: 168 hits <LI>8/26/2009: 168 hits <LI>9/2/2009: 147 hits <LI>10/13/2009: 158 hits <LI>10/22/2009: 208 hits <LI>10/29/2009: 246 hits <LI>11/3/2009: 176 hits <LI>11/17/2009: 133 hits <LI>11/24/2009: 160 hits <LI>12/4/2009: 205 hits <LI>12/10/2009: 158 hits</LI></UL> <P>Now it is almost starting to look as though the "mania" is subsiding, at least a little. Whether a true trend is emerging remains to be seen.</P> <P>One possibility for the stabilization is that the term "resonates" and that the media is more than happy to cling to a term that almost assures that readers will pay attention. How long will it continue to "resonate"? Maybe until the overall economy <EM>and</EM> employment are reliably rising month after month for at least six months.</P> <P>A&nbsp;fair amount of the usage at this stage is not comparison directly <EM>to</EM> The Great Depression, but&nbsp;simply using&nbsp;The Great Depression as a sort of <EM>bookend</EM> as in&nbsp;"<EM>since the Great Depression.</EM>" Still, the media is clearly getting a lot of mileage out of the term even if they are not adding much in the way of useful information or enlightenment.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-7769271689127437251?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-38976223218177559902009-12-04T16:40:00.001-05:002009-12-04T16:40:41.664-05:00<P>I am endeavoring to track the current media mania of attempting to draw parallels between the current economic situation and <STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>. I am doing this by using <A href='http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&amp;um=1&amp;tab=bn&amp;scoring=n&amp;q="the+great+depression"&amp;btnG=Search+News'>Google News</A> to count the total number of "news" references to the phrase "The Great Depression" in the previous 24 hours.</P> <UL> <LI>1/10/2009: 411 hits <LI>1/30/2009: 319 hits <LI>2/6/2009: 308 hits <LI>2/25/2009:&nbsp;389 hits <LI>3/10/2009: 306 hits <LI>3/24/2009: 285 hits <LI>4/9/2009: 93 hits <LI>4/28/2009: 184 hits <LI>4/30/2009: 195 hits <LI>5/7/2009: 184 hits <LI>5/21/2009: 167 hits <LI>6/5/2009: 99 hits <LI>7/8/2009: 170 hits <LI>7/22/2009: 177 hits <LI>7/29/2009: 189 hits <LI>8/14/2009: 169 hits <LI>8/20/2009: 168 hits <LI>8/26/2009: 168 hits <LI>9/2/2009: 147 hits <LI>10/13/2009: 158 hits <LI>10/22/2009: 208 hits <LI>10/29/2009: 246 hits <LI>11/3/2009: 176 hits <LI>11/17/2009: 133 hits <LI>11/24/2009: 160 hits <LI>12/4/2009: 205 hits</LI></UL> <P>Now it is almost starting to look as though the "mania" is subsiding, at least a little. Whether a true trend is emerging remains to be seen.</P> <P>One possibility for the stabilization is that the term "resonates" and that the media is more than happy to cling to a term that almost assures that readers will pay attention. How long will it continue to "resonate"? Maybe until the overall economy <EM>and</EM> employment are reliably rising month after month for at least six months.</P> <P>We recently got our first positive quarterly GDP report today of this business cycle. By itself it is not putting any real dent in all of this depression mania, but give people a few more weeks to see a settling of sentiment as the notion of having our feet firmly back on dry land only gradually sinks in. Then again, lingering employment problems are clearly a fly in the ointment.</P> <P>A&nbsp;fair amount of the usage at this stage is not comparison directly <EM>to</EM> The Great Depression, but&nbsp;simply using&nbsp;The Great Depression as a sort of <EM>bookend</EM> as in&nbsp;"<EM>since the Great Depression.</EM>" Still, the media is clearly getting a lot of mileage out of the term even if they are not adding much in the way of useful information or enlightenment.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-3897622321817755990?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-46997064568779358222009-11-24T15:16:00.000-05:002009-11-24T15:17:42.529-05:00<P>I am endeavoring to track the current media mania of attempting to draw parallels between the current economic situation and <STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>. I am doing this by using <A href='http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&amp;um=1&amp;tab=bn&amp;scoring=n&amp;q="the+great+depression"&amp;btnG=Search+News'>Google News</A> to count the total number of "news" references to the phrase "The Great Depression" in the previous 24 hours.</P> <UL> <LI>1/10/2009: 411 hits <LI>1/30/2009: 319 hits <LI>2/6/2009: 308 hits <LI>2/25/2009:&nbsp;389 hits <LI>3/10/2009: 306 hits <LI>3/24/2009: 285 hits <LI>4/9/2009: 93 hits <LI>4/28/2009: 184 hits <LI>4/30/2009: 195 hits <LI>5/7/2009: 184 hits <LI>5/21/2009: 167 hits <LI>6/5/2009: 99 hits <LI>7/8/2009: 170 hits <LI>7/22/2009: 177 hits <LI>7/29/2009: 189 hits <LI>8/14/2009: 169 hits <LI>8/20/2009: 168 hits <LI>8/26/2009: 168 hits <LI>9/2/2009: 147 hits <LI>10/13/2009: 158 hits <LI>10/22/2009: 208 hits <LI>10/29/2009: 246 hits <LI>11/3/2009: 176 hits <LI>11/17/2009: 133 hits <LI>11/24/2009: 160 hits</LI></UL> <P>Now it is almost starting to look as though the "mania" is subsiding, at least a little. Whether a true trend is emerging remains to be seen.</P> <P>One possibility for the stabilization is that the term "resonates" and that the media is more than happy to cling to a term that almost assures that readers will pay attention. How long will it continue to "resonate"? Maybe until the overall economy <EM>and</EM> employment are reliably rising month after month for at least six months.</P> <P>We recently got our first positive quarterly GDP report today of this business cycle. By itself it is not putting any real dent in all of this depression mania, but give people a few more weeks to see a settling of sentiment as the notion of having our feet firmly back on dry land only gradually sinks in. Then again, lingering employment problems are clearly a fly in the ointment.</P> <P>A&nbsp;fair amount of the usage at this stage is not comparison directly <EM>to</EM> The Great Depression, but&nbsp;simply using&nbsp;The Great Depression as a sort of <EM>bookend</EM> as in&nbsp;"<EM>since the Great Depression.</EM>" Still, the media is clearly getting a lot of mileage out of the term even if they are not adding much in the way of useful information or enlightenment.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-4699706456877935822?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-49904687833380753592009-11-17T11:02:00.001-05:002009-11-17T11:02:38.282-05:00<P>I am endeavoring to track the current media mania of attempting to draw parallels between the current economic situation and <STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>. I am doing this by using <A href='http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&amp;um=1&amp;tab=bn&amp;scoring=n&amp;q="the+great+depression"&amp;btnG=Search+News'>Google News</A> to count the total number of "news" references to the phrase "The Great Depression" in the previous 24 hours.</P> <UL> <LI>1/10/2009: 411 hits <LI>1/30/2009: 319 hits <LI>2/6/2009: 308 hits <LI>2/25/2009:&nbsp;389 hits <LI>3/10/2009: 306 hits <LI>3/24/2009: 285 hits <LI>4/9/2009: 93 hits <LI>4/28/2009: 184 hits <LI>4/30/2009: 195 hits <LI>5/7/2009: 184 hits <LI>5/21/2009: 167 hits <LI>6/5/2009: 99 hits <LI>7/8/2009: 170 hits <LI>7/22/2009: 177 hits <LI>7/29/2009: 189 hits <LI>8/14/2009: 169 hits <LI>8/20/2009: 168 hits <LI>8/26/2009: 168 hits <LI>9/2/2009: 147 hits <LI>10/13/2009: 158 hits <LI>10/22/2009: 208 hits <LI>10/29/2009: 246 hits <LI>11/3/2009: 176 hits <LI>11/17/2009: 133 hits</LI></UL> <P>Now it is almost starting to look as though the "mania" is subsiding, at least a little. Whether a true trend is emerging remains to be seen.</P> <P>One possibility for the stabilization is that the term "resonates" and that the media is more than happy to cling to a term that almost assures that readers will pay attention. How long will it continue to "resonate"? Maybe until the overall economy <EM>and</EM> employment are reliably rising month after month for at least six months.</P> <P>We recently got our first positive quarterly GDP report today of this business cycle. By itself it is not putting any real dent in all of this depression mania, but give people a few more weeks to see a settling of sentiment as the notion of having our feet firmly back on dry land only gradually sinks in. Then again, lingering employment problems are clearly a fly in the ointment.</P> <P>A&nbsp;fair amount of the usage at this stage is not comparison directly <EM>to</EM> The Great Depression, but&nbsp;simply using&nbsp;The Great Depression as a sort of <EM>bookend</EM> an in&nbsp;"<EM>since the Great Depression.</EM>" Still, the media is clearly getting a lot of mileage out of the term even if they are not adding much in the way of useful information or enlightenment.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-4990468783338075359?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-36243856376405249422009-11-03T11:03:00.001-05:002009-11-03T11:03:53.810-05:00<P>I am endeavoring to track the current media mania of attempting to draw parallels between the current economic situation and <STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>. I am doing this by using <A href='http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&amp;um=1&amp;tab=bn&amp;scoring=n&amp;q="the+great+depression"&amp;btnG=Search+News'>Google News</A> to count the total number of "news" references to the phrase "The Great Depression" in the previous 24 hours.</P> <UL> <LI>1/10/2009: 411 hits <LI>1/30/2009: 319 hits <LI>2/6/2009: 308 hits <LI>2/25/2009:&nbsp;389 hits <LI>3/10/2009: 306 hits <LI>3/24/2009: 285 hits <LI>4/9/2009: 93 hits <LI>4/28/2009: 184 hits <LI>4/30/2009: 195 hits <LI>5/7/2009: 184 hits <LI>5/21/2009: 167 hits <LI>6/5/2009: 99 hits <LI>7/8/2009: 170 hits <LI>7/22/2009: 177 hits <LI>7/29/2009: 189 hits <LI>8/14/2009: 169 hits <LI>8/20/2009: 168 hits <LI>8/26/2009: 168 hits <LI>9/2/2009: 147 hits <LI>10/13/2009: 158 hits <LI>10/22/2009: 208 hits <LI>10/29/2009: 246 hits <LI>11/3/2009: 176 hits</LI></UL> <P>Although the usage seemed to have stabilized, neither trending up dramatically nor trending down dramatically, the recent rise&nbsp;is probably very likely&nbsp;due to anxiety about the prospect for a double dip.</P> <P>The "anniversary" of the October 29, 1929 stock market crash probably also inspired some additional <EM>nostalgia</EM> for "The Great Depression."</P> <P>One possibility for the stabilization is that the term "resonates" and that the media is more than happy to cling to a term that almost assures that readers will pay attention. How long will it continue to "resonate"? Maybe until the overall economy <EM>and</EM> employment are reliably rising month after month for at least six months.</P> <P>We just got our first positive quarterly GDP report today of this business cycle. By itself it is not putting any real dent in all of this depression mania, but give people a week or two to see a settling of sentiment as the notion of having our feet firmly back on dry land only gradually sinks in.</P> <P>A&nbsp;fair amount of the usage at this stage is not comparison directly <EM>to</EM> The Great Depression, but&nbsp;simply using&nbsp;The Great Depression as a sort of <EM>bookend</EM> an in&nbsp;"<EM>since the Great Depression.</EM>" Still, the media is clearly getting a lot of mileage out of the term even if they are not adding much in the way of useful information or enlightenment.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-3624385637640524942?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-52739005715931482052009-10-29T10:55:00.001-04:002009-10-29T10:55:27.693-04:00<P>I am endeavoring to track the current media mania of attempting to draw parallels between the current economic situation and <STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>. I am doing this by using <A href='http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&amp;um=1&amp;tab=bn&amp;scoring=n&amp;q="the+great+depression"&amp;btnG=Search+News'>Google News</A> to count the total number of "news" references to the phrase "The Great Depression" in the previous 24 hours.</P> <UL> <LI>1/10/2009: 411 hits <LI>1/30/2009: 319 hits <LI>2/6/2009: 308 hits <LI>2/25/2009:&nbsp;389 hits <LI>3/10/2009: 306 hits <LI>3/24/2009: 285 hits <LI>4/9/2009: 93 hits <LI>4/28/2009: 184 hits <LI>4/30/2009: 195 hits <LI>5/7/2009: 184 hits <LI>5/21/2009: 167 hits <LI>6/5/2009: 99 hits <LI>7/8/2009: 170 hits <LI>7/22/2009: 177 hits <LI>7/29/2009: 189 hits <LI>8/14/2009: 169 hits <LI>8/20/2009: 168 hits <LI>8/26/2009: 168 hits <LI>9/2/2009: 147 hits <LI>10/13/2009: 158 hits <LI>10/22/2009: 208 hits <LI>10/29/2009: 246 hits</LI></UL> <P>Although the usage seemed to have stabilized, neither trending up dramatically nor trending down dramatically, the recent rise may be due to anxiety about the prospect for a double dip.</P> <P>The "anniversary" of the October 29, 1929 stock market crash probably also inspired some additional <EM>nostalgia</EM> for "The Great Depression."</P> <P>One possibility for the stabilization is that the term "resonates" and that the media is more than happy to cling to a term that almost assures that readers will pay attention. How long will it continue to "resonate"? Maybe until the overall economy <EM>and</EM> employment are reliably rising month after month for at least six months.</P> <P>We just got our first positive quarterly GDP report today of this business cycle. By itself it is not putting any real dent in all of this depression mania, but give people a week or two to see a settling of sentiment as the notion of having our feet firmly back on dry land only gradually sinks in.</P> <P>A&nbsp;fair amount of the usage at this stage is not comparison directly <EM>to</EM> The Great Depression, but&nbsp;simply using&nbsp;The Great Depression as a sort of <EM>bookend</EM> an in&nbsp;"<EM>since the Great Depression.</EM>" Still, the media is clearly getting a lot of mileage out of the term even if they are not adding much in the way of useful information or enlightenment.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-5273900571593148205?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-35548864762685477602009-10-22T10:15:00.001-04:002009-10-22T10:15:38.469-04:00<P>I am endeavoring to track the current media mania of attempting to draw parallels between the current economic situation and <STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>. I am doing this by using <A href='http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&amp;um=1&amp;tab=bn&amp;scoring=n&amp;q="the+great+depression"&amp;btnG=Search+News'>Google News</A> to count the total number of "news" references to the phrase "The Great Depression" in the previous 24 hours.</P> <UL> <LI>1/10/2009: 411 hits <LI>1/30/2009: 319 hits <LI>2/6/2009: 308 hits <LI>2/25/2009:&nbsp;389 hits <LI>3/10/2009: 306 hits <LI>3/24/2009: 285 hits <LI>4/9/2009: 93 hits <LI>4/28/2009: 184 hits <LI>4/30/2009: 195 hits <LI>5/7/2009: 184 hits <LI>5/21/2009: 167 hits <LI>6/5/2009: 99 hits <LI>7/8/2009: 170 hits <LI>7/22/2009: 177 hits <LI>7/29/2009: 189 hits <LI>8/14/2009: 169 hits <LI>8/20/2009: 168 hits <LI>8/26/2009: 168 hits <LI>9/2/2009: 147 hits <LI>10/13/2009: 158 hits <LI>10/22/2009: 208 hits</LI></UL> <P>Although the usage seemed to have stabilized, neither trending up dramatically nor trending down dramatically, the recent rise may be due to anxiety about the prospect for a double dip.</P> <P>One possibility for the stabilization is that the term "resonates" and that the media is more than happy to cling to a term that almost assures that readers will pay attention. How long will it continue to "resonate"? Maybe until the overall economy <EM>and</EM> employment are reliably rising month after month for at least six months.</P> <P>It will be interesting to see if the first positive quarterly GDP report puts a real dent in all of this depression mania. That will come on Thursday, October 29, 2009. We have already had two consecutive months of rising industrial production and two consecutive months of positive ISM Manufacturing reports. Employment remains the primary drag.</P> <P>A&nbsp;fair amount of the usage at this stage is not comparison directly <EM>to</EM> The Great Depression, but&nbsp;simply using&nbsp;The Great Depression as a sort of <EM>bookend</EM> an in&nbsp;"<EM>since the Great Depression.</EM>" Still, the media is clearly getting a lot of mileage out of the term even if they are not adding much in the way of useful information or enlightenment.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-3554886476268547760?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-26045787610502745762009-10-13T07:45:00.000-04:002009-10-13T07:46:22.692-04:00<P>I am endeavoring to track the current media mania of attempting to draw parallels between the current economic situation and <STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>. I am doing this by using <A href='http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&amp;um=1&amp;tab=bn&amp;scoring=n&amp;q="the+great+depression"&amp;btnG=Search+News'>Google News</A> to count the total number of "news" references to the phrase "The Great Depression" in the previous 24 hours.</P> <UL> <LI>1/10/2009: 411 hits <LI>1/30/2009: 319 hits <LI>2/6/2009: 308 hits <LI>2/25/2009:&nbsp;389 hits <LI>3/10/2009: 306 hits <LI>3/24/2009: 285 hits <LI>4/9/2009: 93 hits <LI>4/28/2009: 184 hits <LI>4/30/2009: 195 hits <LI>5/7/2009: 184 hits <LI>5/21/2009: 167 hits <LI>6/5/2009: 99 hits <LI>7/8/2009: 170 hits <LI>7/22/2009: 177 hits <LI>7/29/2009: 189 hits <LI>8/14/2009: 169 hits <LI>8/20/2009: 168 hits <LI>8/26/2009: 168 hits <LI>9/2/2009: 147 hits <LI>10/13/2009: 158 hits</LI></UL> <P>The usage seems to have stabilized, neither trending up dramatically nor trending down dramatically.</P> <P>One possibility for the stabilization is that the term "resonates" and that the media is more than happy to cling to a term that almost assures that readers will pay attention. How long will it continue to "resonate"? Maybe until the overall economy <EM>and</EM> employment are reliably rising month after month for at least six months.</P> <P>It will be interesting to see if the first positive quarterly GDP report puts a real dent in all of this depression mania. That will come on Thursday, October 29, 2009. We have already had two consecutive months of rising industrial production and two consecutive months of positive ISM Manufacturing reports. Employment remains the primary drag.</P> <P>A&nbsp;fair amount of the usage at this stage is not comparison directly <EM>to</EM> The Great Depression, but&nbsp;simply using&nbsp;The Great Depression as a sort of <EM>bookend</EM> an in&nbsp;"<EM>since the Great Depression.</EM>" Still, the media is clearly getting a lot of mileage out of the term even if they are not adding much in the way of useful information or enlightenment.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-2604578761050274576?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-87022745322818465002009-09-02T18:01:00.001-04:002009-09-02T18:01:18.422-04:00<P>I am endeavoring to track the current media mania of attempting to draw parallels between the current economic situation and <STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>. I am doing this by using <A href='http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&amp;um=1&amp;tab=bn&amp;scoring=n&amp;q="the+great+depression"&amp;btnG=Search+News'>Google News</A> to count the total number of "news" references to the phrase "The Great Depression" in the previous 24 hours.</P> <UL> <LI>1/10/2009: 411 hits <LI>1/30/2009: 319 hits <LI>2/6/2009: 308 hits <LI>2/25/2009:&nbsp;389 hits <LI>3/10/2009: 306 hits <LI>3/24/2009: 285 hits <LI>4/9/2009: 93 hits <LI>4/28/2009: 184 hits <LI>4/30/2009: 195 hits <LI>5/7/2009: 184 hits <LI>5/21/2009: 167 hits <LI>6/5/2009: 99 hits <LI>7/8/2009: 170 hits <LI>7/22/2009: 177 hits <LI>7/29/2009: 189 hits <LI>8/14/2009: 169 hits <LI>8/20/2009: 168 hits <LI>8/26/2009: 168 hits <LI>9/2/2009: 147 hits</LI></UL> <P>That was a noticeable drop last week, but one datapoint does not mark a trend change.</P> <P>The usage seems to have stabilized, neither trending up dramatically nor trending down dramatically.</P> <P>One possibility for the stabilization is that the term "resonates" and that the media is more than happy to cling to a term that almost assures that readers will pay attention. How long will it continue to "resonate"? Maybe until the overall economy <EM>and</EM> employment are reliably rising month after month for at least six months.</P> <P>A&nbsp;fair amount of the usage at this stage is not comparison directly <EM>to</EM> The Great Depression, but&nbsp;simply using&nbsp;The Great Depression as a sort of <EM>bookend</EM> an in&nbsp;"<EM>since the Great Depression.</EM>" Still, the media is clearly getting a lot of mileage out of the term even if they are not adding much in the way of useful information or enlightenment.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-8702274532281846500?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-89641348520437852222009-09-01T18:55:00.000-04:002009-09-01T18:56:32.418-04:00<P>Allan Meltzer,&nbsp;&nbsp;professor of economics at Carnegie Mellon University, had a good opinion piece in <EM>The Wall Street Journal</EM> yesterday entitled "<A href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342931435353734.html">What Happened to the 'Depression'? - Despite the rhetoric from Washington, we were never close to 25% unemployment</A>" in which he debunks the comparisons of the current recession to The Great Depression. He asks "<EM>So why do many opinion makers insist on inaccurate and frightening analogies that overstate the severity of present conditions?</EM>" and then proceeds to point out the many political benefits of such a comparison, with similar benefits for many economists and the media.</P> <P>Prof. Meltzer also takes the time to point out a fact that I knew but <EM>never</EM> shows up in the media: The Great Depression consisted of <EM>two</EM> recessions, from 1929 to 1932 and from 1937 to 1938.</P> <P>The most significant point that I think Prof. Meltzer makes is that it was a huge mistake for the Federal Reserve to stand by and let Lehman Brother fail. As he says, "<EM>Allowing Lehman to fail without warning is one of the worst blunders in Federal Reserve history.</EM>" By the way, Prof. Meltzer <EM>has</EM> written the definitive history of the Federal Reserve. Prof. Meltzer tells us that "<EM>After 30 years of bailing out almost all large financial firms, the Fed made the horrendous mistake of changing its policy in the midst of a recession. <STRONG>That set off a scramble for liquidity and heightened the public's distrust in the market.</STRONG></EM>" And, as they say, the rest is history.</P> <P>The good professor closes with his own prescription:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px" dir=ltr> <P><EM>A sensible administration would revise its policy. It should start by scrapping what remains of the stimulus. As the world economy recovers, the United States should choose to expand its exports so that it can service its large and growing foreign debts. That means reducing corporate tax rates to increase investment. Instead of implementing policies that increase regulation and raise business costs, we need to increase productivity. And the Fed should soon begin to reduce the massive volume of outstanding bank reserves, which is the raw material for future money growth.</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Prof. Meltzer certainly knows his stuff, but there&nbsp;are always more ways than one to skin a cat. The administration's approach may be rather sub-optimal and in a state of flux and Prof. Meltzer's prescription may be distinctly superior, at least in the abstract, but that is not to say that the administration's approach&nbsp;is strictly doomed to either fail or necessarily even to dramatically underperform compared to Prof. Meltzer's approach.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-8964134852043785222?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-24305434291183583852009-08-26T19:56:00.001-04:002009-08-26T19:56:29.360-04:00<P>I am endeavoring to track the current media mania of attempting to draw parallels between the current economic situation and <STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>. I am doing this by using <A href='http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&amp;um=1&amp;tab=bn&amp;scoring=n&amp;q="the+great+depression"&amp;btnG=Search+News'>Google News</A> to count the total number of "news" references to the phrase "The Great Depression" in the previous 24 hours.</P> <UL> <LI>1/10/2009: 411 hits <LI>1/30/2009: 319 hits <LI>2/6/2009: 308 hits <LI>2/25/2009:&nbsp;389 hits <LI>3/10/2009: 306 hits <LI>3/24/2009: 285 hits <LI>4/9/2009: 93 hits <LI>4/28/2009: 184 hits <LI>4/30/2009: 195 hits <LI>5/7/2009: 184 hits <LI>5/21/2009: 167 hits <LI>6/5/2009: 99 hits <LI>7/8/2009: 170 hits <LI>7/22/2009: 177 hits <LI>7/29/2009: 189 hits <LI>8/14/2009: 169 hits <LI>8/20/2009: 168 hits <LI>8/26/2009: 168 hits</LI></UL> <P>The usage seems to have stabilized, neither trending up dramatically nor trending down dramatically.</P> <P>One possibility for the stabilization is that the term "resonates" and that the media is more than happy to cling to a term that almost assures that readers will pay attention. How long will it continue to "resonate"? Maybe until the overall economy <EM>and</EM> employment are reliably rising month after month for at least six months.</P> <P>A&nbsp;fair amount of the usage at this stage is not comparison directly <EM>to</EM> The Great Depression, but&nbsp;simply using&nbsp;The Great Depression as a sort of <EM>bookend</EM> an in&nbsp;"<EM>since the Great Depression.</EM>" Still, the media is clearly getting a lot of mileage out of the term even if they are not adding much in the way of useful information or enlightenment.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-2430543429118358385?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-6978604793321828772009-08-20T19:49:00.000-04:002009-08-20T19:51:08.924-04:00<P>I am endeavoring to track the current media mania of attempting to draw parallels between the current economic situation and <STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>. I am doing this by using <A href='http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&amp;um=1&amp;tab=bn&amp;scoring=n&amp;q="the+great+depression"&amp;btnG=Search+News'>Google News</A> to count the total number of "news" references to the phrase "The Great Depression" in the previous 24 hours.</P> <UL> <LI>1/10/2009: 411 hits <LI>1/30/2009: 319 hits <LI>2/6/2009: 308 hits <LI>2/25/2009:&nbsp;389 hits <LI>3/10/2009: 306 hits <LI>3/24/2009: 285 hits <LI>4/9/2009: 93 hits <LI>4/28/2009: 184 hits <LI>4/30/2009: 195 hits <LI>5/7/2009: 184 hits <LI>5/21/2009: 167 hits <LI>6/5/2009: 99 hits <LI>7/8/2009: 170 hits <LI>7/22/2009: 177 hits <LI>7/29/2009: 189 hits <LI>8/14/2009: 169 hits <LI>8/20/2009: 168 hits</LI></UL> <P>Although there has been a recent increase in the apparent mania, I would still say that it does appear that the media mania has peaked,&nbsp;although we are still quite a ways from being able to say that the mania is "over." The good news is that the media mania has not dramatically worsened.</P> <P>The recent increase is likely due to disappointment that we did not see a significant uptick in economic activity in June. People were hoping that the second-half recovery would be showing more "green shoots" in June.</P> <P>Another possibility is that the term "resonates" and that the media is more than happy to cling to a term that almost assures that readers will pay attention. How long will it continue to "resonate"? Maybe until the overall economy <EM>and</EM> employment are reliably rising month after month for at least six months.</P> <P>Actually a fair amount of the usage at this stage is not comparison directly <EM>to</EM> The Great Depression, but&nbsp;simply using&nbsp;The Great Depression as a sort of <EM>bookend</EM> an in&nbsp;"<EM>since the Great Depression.</EM>" Still, the media is clearly getting a lot of mileage out of the term even if they are not adding much in the way of useful information or enlightenment.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-697860479332182877?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-2529605185601431732009-08-14T13:15:00.000-04:002009-08-14T13:16:08.300-04:00<P>I am endeavoring to track the current media mania of attempting to draw parallels between the current economic situation and <STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>. I am doing this by using <A href='http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&amp;um=1&amp;tab=bn&amp;scoring=n&amp;q="the+great+depression"&amp;btnG=Search+News'>Google News</A> to count the total number of "news" references to the phrase "The Great Depression" in the previous 24 hours.</P> <UL> <LI>1/10/2009: 411 hits <LI>1/30/2009: 319 hits <LI>2/6/2009: 308 hits <LI>2/25/2009:&nbsp;389 hits <LI>3/10/2009: 306 hits <LI>3/24/2009: 285 hits <LI>4/9/2009: 93 hits <LI>4/28/2009: 184 hits <LI>4/30/2009: 195 hits <LI>5/7/2009: 184 hits <LI>5/21/2009: 167 hits <LI>6/5/2009: 99 hits <LI>7/8/2009: 170 hits <LI>7/22/2009: 177 hits <LI>7/29/2009: 189 hits <LI>8/14/2009: 169 hits</LI></UL> <P>Although there has been a recent increase in the apparent mania, I would still say that it does appear that the media mania has peaked,&nbsp;although we are still quite a ways from being able to say that the mania is "over." The good news is that the media mania has not dramatically worsened.</P> <P>The recent increase is likely due to disappointment that we did not see a significant uptick in economic activity in June. People were hoping that the second-half recovery would be showing more "green shoots" in June.</P> <P>Another possibility is that the term "resonates" and that the media is more than happy to cling to a term that almost assures that readers will pay attention. How long will it continue to "resonate"? Maybe until the overall economy <EM>and</EM> employment are reliably rising month after month for at least six months.</P> <P>Actually a fair amount of the usage at this stage is not comparison directly <EM>to</EM> The Great Depression, but&nbsp;simply using&nbsp;The Great Depression as a sort of <EM>bookend</EM> an in&nbsp;"<EM>since the Great Depression.</EM>" Still, the media is clearly getting a lot of mileage out of the term even if they are not adding much in the way of useful information or enlightenment.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-252960518560143173?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-1787185031724252422009-07-29T20:34:00.001-04:002009-07-29T20:34:48.676-04:00<P>I am endeavoring to track the current media mania of attempting to draw parallels between the current economic situation and <STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>. I am doing this by using <A href='http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&amp;um=1&amp;tab=bn&amp;scoring=n&amp;q="the+great+depression"&amp;btnG=Search+News'>Google News</A> to count the total number of "news" references to the phrase "The Great Depression" in the previous 24 hours.</P> <UL> <LI>1/10/2009: 411 hits <LI>1/30/2009: 319 hits <LI>2/6/2009: 308 hits <LI>2/25/2009:&nbsp;389 hits <LI>3/10/2009: 306 hits <LI>3/24/2009: 285 hits <LI>4/9/2009: 93 hits <LI>4/28/2009: 184 hits <LI>4/30/2009: 195 hits <LI>5/7/2009: 184 hits <LI>5/21/2009: 167 hits <LI>6/5/2009: 99 hits <LI>7/8/2009: 170 hits <LI>7/22/2009: 177 hits <LI>7/29/2009: 189 hits</LI></UL> <P>Although there has been a recent increase in the apparent mania, I would still say that it does appear that the media mania has peaked,&nbsp;although we are still quite a ways from being able to say that the mania is "over." The good news is that the media mania has not dramatically worsened.</P> <P>The recent increase is likely due to disappointment that we did not see a significant uptick in economic activity in June. People were hoping that the second-half recovery would be showing more "green shoots" in June.</P> <P>Another possibility is that the term "resonates" and that the media is more than happy to cling to a term that almost assures that readers will pay attention. How long will it continue to "resonate"? Maybe until the overall economy <EM>and</EM> employment are reliably rising month after month for at least six months.</P> <P>Actually a fair amount of the usage at this stage is not comparison directly <EM>to</EM> The Great Depression, but&nbsp;simply using&nbsp;The Great Depression as a sort of <EM>bookend</EM> an in&nbsp;"<EM>since the Great Depression.</EM>" Still, the media is clearly getting a lot of mileage out of the term even if they are not adding much in the way of useful information.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-178718503172425242?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-18657419749737971852009-07-22T16:35:00.001-04:002009-07-22T16:35:56.141-04:00<P>I am endeavoring to track the current media mania of attempting to draw parallels between the current economic situation and <STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>. I am doing this by using <A href='http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&amp;um=1&amp;tab=bn&amp;scoring=n&amp;q="the+great+depression"&amp;btnG=Search+News'>Google News</A> to count the total number of "news" references to the phrase "The Great Depression" in the previous 24 hours.</P> <UL> <LI>1/10/2009: 411 hits <LI>1/30/2009: 319 hits <LI>2/6/2009: 308 hits <LI>2/25/2009:&nbsp;389 hits <LI>3/10/2009: 306 hits <LI>3/24/2009: 285 hits <LI>4/9/2009: 93 hits <LI>4/28/2009: 184 hits <LI>4/30/2009: 195 hits <LI>5/7/2009: 184 hits <LI>5/21/2009: 167 hits <LI>6/5/2009: 99 hits <LI>7/8/2009: 170 hits <LI>7/22/2009: 177 hits</LI></UL> <P>Although there has been a recent increase in the apparent mania, I would still say that it does appear that the media mania has peaked,&nbsp;although we are still quite a ways from being able to say that the mania is "over." The good news is that the media mania has not dramatically worsened.</P> <P>The recent increase is likely due to disappointment that we did not see a significant uptick in economic activity in June. People were hoping that the second-half recovery would be showing more "green shoots" in June.</P> <P>Another possibility is that the term "resonates" and that the media is more than happy to cling to a term that almost assures that readers will pay attention. How long will it continue to "resonate"? Maybe until the overall economy <EM>and</EM> employment are reliably rising month after month for at least six months.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-1865741974973797185?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-44673518954226928152009-07-08T09:58:00.001-04:002009-07-08T09:58:20.790-04:00<P>I am endeavoring to track the current media mania of attempting to draw parallels between the current economic situation and <STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>. I am doing this by using <A href='http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&amp;um=1&amp;tab=bn&amp;scoring=n&amp;q="the+great+depression"&amp;btnG=Search+News'>Google News</A> to count the total number of "news" references to the phrase "The Great Depression" in the previous 24 hours.</P> <UL> <LI>1/10/2009: 411 hits <LI>1/30/2009: 319 hits <LI>2/6/2009: 308 hits <LI>2/25/2009:&nbsp;389 hits <LI>3/10/2009: 306 hits <LI>3/24/2009: 285 hits <LI>4/9/2009: 93 hits <LI>4/28/2009: 184 hits <LI>4/30/2009: 195 hits <LI>5/7/2009: 184 hits <LI>5/21/2009: 167 hits <LI>6/5/2009: 99 hits <LI>7/8/2009: 170 hits</LI></UL> <P>Although there has been a recent increase in the apparent mania, I would still say that it does appear that the media mania has peaked,&nbsp;although we are still quite a ways from being able to say that the mania is "over." The good news is that the media mania has not dramatically worsened.</P> <P>The recent increase is likely due to disappointment that we did not see a significant uptick in economic activity in June. People were hoping that the second-half recovery would be showing more "green shoots" in June.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-4467351895422692815?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-51983480974128780922009-06-05T19:10:00.000-04:002009-06-05T19:11:49.711-04:00<P>I am endeavoring to track the current media mania of attempting to draw parallels between the current economic situation and <STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>. I am doing this by using <A href='http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&amp;um=1&amp;tab=bn&amp;scoring=n&amp;q="the+great+depression"&amp;btnG=Search+News'>Google News</A> to count the total number of "news" references to the phrase "The Great Depression" in the previous 24 hours.</P> <UL> <LI>1/10/2009: 411 hits <LI>1/30/2009: 319 hits <LI>2/6/2009: 308 hits <LI>2/25/2009:&nbsp;389 hits <LI>3/10/2009: 306 hits <LI>3/24/2009: 285 hits <LI>4/9/2009: 93 hits <LI>4/28/2009: 184 hits <LI>4/30/2009: 195 hits <LI>5/7/2009: 184 hits <LI>5/21/2009: 167 hits <LI>6/5/2009: 99 hits</LI></UL> <P>It does appear that the media mania has peaked, but we are still quite a ways from being able to say that the mania is "over." The good news is that the media mania has not worsened.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-5198348097412878092?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-1306666824808481022009-05-21T17:00:00.000-04:002009-05-21T17:03:01.008-04:00<P>I am endeavoring to track the current media mania of attempting to draw parallels between the current economic situation and <STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>. I am doing this by using <A href='http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&amp;um=1&amp;tab=bn&amp;scoring=n&amp;q="the+great+depression"&amp;btnG=Search+News'>Google News</A> to count the total number of "news" references to the phrase "The Great Depression" in the previous 24 hours.</P> <UL> <LI>1/10/2009: 411 hits <LI>1/30/2009: 319 hits <LI>2/6/2009: 308 hits <LI>2/25/2009:&nbsp;389 hits <LI>3/10/2009: 306 hits <LI>3/24/2009: 285 hits <LI>4/9/2009: 93 hits <LI>4/28/2009: 184 hits <LI>4/30/2009: 195 hits <LI>5/7/2009: 184 hits <LI>5/21/2009: 167 hits</LI></UL> <P>It does appear that the media mania has peaked, but we are still quite a ways from being able to say that the mania is "over." The good news is that the media mania has not worsened.</P> <P>I do wonder whether the recent Swine Flu mania may have taken a little bit of the wind out of the sails of the depression mania. We'll see what happens in a week.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-130666682480848102?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-76229388743676940872009-05-07T09:35:00.000-04:002009-05-07T09:37:43.728-04:00<P>I am endeavoring to track the current media mania of attempting to draw parallels between the current economic situation and <STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>. I am doing this by using <A href='http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&amp;um=1&amp;tab=bn&amp;scoring=n&amp;q="the+great+depression"&amp;btnG=Search+News'>Google News</A> to count the total number of "news" references to the phrase "The Great Depression" in the previous 24 hours.</P> <UL> <LI>1/10/2009: 411 hits <LI>1/30/2009: 319 hits <LI>2/6/2009: 308 hits <LI>2/25/2009:&nbsp;389 hits <LI>3/10/2009: 306 hits <LI>3/24/2009: 285 hits <LI>4/9/2009: 93 hits <LI>4/28/2009: 184 hits <LI>4/30/2009: 195 hits <LI>5/7/2009: 184 hits</LI></UL> <P>It does appear that the media mania has peaked, but we are still quite a ways from being able to say that the mania is "over." The good news is that the media mania has not worsened.</P> <P>I do wonder whether the recent Swine Flu mania may have taken a little bit of the wind out of the sails of the depression mania. We'll see what happens in a week.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-7622938874367694087?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-44763932568317604382009-05-01T19:43:00.000-04:002009-05-01T19:44:14.680-04:00<P>I am endeavoring to track the current media mania of attempting to draw parallels between the current economic situation and <STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>. I am doing this by using <A href='http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&amp;um=1&amp;tab=bn&amp;scoring=n&amp;q="the+great+depression"&amp;btnG=Search+News'>Google News</A> to count the total number of "news" references to the phrase "The Great Depression" in the previous 24 hours.</P> <UL> <LI>1/10/2009: 411 hits <LI>1/30/2009: 319 hits <LI>2/6/2009: 308 hits <LI>2/25/2009:&nbsp;389 hits <LI>3/10/2009: 306 hits <LI>3/24/2009: 285 hits <LI>4/9/2009: 93 hits <LI>4/28/2009: 184 hits <LI>4/30/2009: 195 hits</LI></UL> <P>It does appear that the media mania has peaked, but we are still quite a ways from being able to say that the mania is "over." The good news is that the media mania has not worsened.</P> <P>I do wonder whether the recent Swine Flu mania may have taken a little bit of the wind out of the sails of the depression mania. We'll see what happens in a week.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-4476393256831760438?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-68564792120682991332009-04-28T09:27:00.001-04:002009-04-28T09:27:51.265-04:00<P>I am endeavoring to track the current media mania of attempting to draw parallels between the current economic situation and <STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>. I am doing this by using <A href='http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&amp;um=1&amp;tab=bn&amp;scoring=n&amp;q="the+great+depression"&amp;btnG=Search+News'>Google News</A> to count the total number of "news" references to the phrase "The Great Depression" in the previous 24 hours.</P> <UL> <LI>1/10/2009: 411 hits <LI>1/30/2009: 319 hits <LI>2/6/2009: 308 hits <LI>2/25/2009:&nbsp;389 hits <LI>3/10/2009: 306 hits <LI>3/24/2009: 285 hits <LI>4/9/2009: 93 hits <LI>4/28/2009: 184 hits</LI></UL> <P>It does appear that the media mania has peaked, but we are still quite a ways from being able to say that the mania is "over." The good news is that the media mania has not worsened.</P> <P>I do wonder whether the recent Swine Flu mania may have taken a little bit of the wind out of the sails of the depression mania.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-6856479212068299133?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-68762860099951285732009-04-09T15:21:00.001-04:002009-04-09T15:21:49.490-04:00<P>I am endeavoring to track the current media mania of attempting to draw parallels between the current economic situation and <STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>. I am doing this by using <A href='http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&amp;um=1&amp;tab=bn&amp;scoring=n&amp;q="the+great+depression"&amp;btnG=Search+News'>Google News</A> to count the total number of "news" references to the phrase "The Great Depression" in the previous 24 hours.</P> <UL> <LI>1/10/2009: 411 hits <LI>1/30/2009: 319 hits <LI>2/6/2009: 308 hits <LI>2/25/2009:&nbsp;389 hits <LI>3/10/2009: 306 hits <LI>3/24/2009: 285 hits <LI>4/9/2009: 93 hits</LI></UL> <P>It does appear that the media mania has peaked, but we are still quite a ways from being able to say that the mania is "over." The good news is that the media mania has not worsened.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-6876286009995128573?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-3224302108171660812009-03-24T15:44:00.001-04:002009-03-24T15:44:45.429-04:00<P>I am endeavoring to track the current media mania of attempting to draw parallels between the current economic situation and <STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>. I am doing this by using <A href='http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&amp;um=1&amp;tab=bn&amp;scoring=n&amp;q="the+great+depression"&amp;btnG=Search+News'>Google News</A> to count the total number of "news" references to the phrase "The Great Depression" in the previous 24 hours.</P> <UL> <LI>1/10/2009: 411 hits <LI>1/30/2009: 319 hits <LI>2/6/2009: 308 hits <LI>2/25/2009:&nbsp;389 hits <LI>3/10/2009: 306 hits <LI>3/24/2009: 285 hits</LI></UL> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-322430210817166081?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-52446074000168787572009-03-10T09:46:00.000-04:002009-03-10T09:47:13.688-04:00<P>I am endeavoring to track the current media mania of attempting to draw parallels between the current economic situation and <STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>. I am doing this by using <A href='http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&amp;um=1&amp;tab=bn&amp;scoring=n&amp;q="the+great+depression"&amp;btnG=Search+News'>Google News</A> to count the total number of "news" references to the phrase "The Great Depression" in the previous 24 hours.</P> <UL> <LI>1/10/2009: 411 hits <LI>1/30/2009: 319 hits <LI>2/6/2009: 308 hits <LI>2/25/2009:&nbsp;389 hits <LI>3/10/2009: 306 hits</LI></UL> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-5244607400016878757?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-82351575669159268042009-03-09T18:31:00.000-04:002009-03-09T18:32:24.461-04:00<P>What a great name for someone alleging that we are on the "<EM>brink of a depression</EM>": <STRONG><EM>Specter</EM></STRONG>. According to an <EM>Associated Press</EM> article entitled&nbsp;"<A href="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SPECTER_STIMULUS">Specter says nation on 'brink of a depression'</A>":</P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <P><EM>The nation is on the "brink of a depression," but there's a "reasonable chance" that the $787 billion economic stimulus package will help ease the situation, Sen. Arlen Specter said Monday.</EM></P> <P><EM>Specter, R-Pa., said the nation's economic situation is <STRONG>more dire than the public has been told, but did not elaborate</STRONG>.</EM></P> <P><EM>"Our economic problems are enormously serious - <STRONG>more serious than is publicly disclosed</STRONG>. And I think <STRONG>we're on the brink of a depression</STRONG>," he told reporters at the state Capitol.</EM></P> <P><EM>...</EM></P> <P><EM>"<STRONG>Had there been no stimulus, I think we'd have gone right off the edge</STRONG>," he said. "I think <STRONG>we're pretty close to the edge anyway</STRONG>, to be very brutally blunt about it."</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>This is the same Arlen Specter who concocted the infamous <A href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_bullet_theory">Single-Bullet Theory of the JFK assassination</A>&nbsp;and here&nbsp;he is concocting a conspiracy theory about the U.S. government allegedly withholding information about the economy. Yeah, right.</P> <P>In truth, there is no "edge" or single trigger event for a depression. A true depression is a very long, very slow downward slide. Sure, people worry about whether our current slide might have that lasting potential, but there is no evidence of that yet -- even if the dear senator might have fearmongered himself into believing so.</P> <P>It may not feel like the government actions are having much of an effect, but that is because the Federal Reserve, Treasury, et al are still busy putting all of the elements into place and it will take more than just a few months to see fruit borne of those efforts.</P> <P>My theory is simply that we need to finish burning off the excess "growth" of the past several years which was fueled by super-cheap credit and exotic financial instruments. That might mean a net hit of 5% to 10% to GDP, employment, income, and spending, but this is not a long-term depressionary process. Sure, such a "structural contraction" is much worse than a garden-variety inventory-based recession, but we already have enough structural supports in place to effectively preclude a true depression.</P> <P>If we are at a brink, it is a brink of starting to see the positive impact of the stimulus and the Federal Reserve efforts to restart non-bank lending (what was called the "shadow banking system.")</P> <P>The simple reality is that politicians love to peddle one of two things: sunny-day fantasies or deep, dark gloom. The latter gets a lot of traction these days regardless of what reality might be.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-8235157566915926804?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-4327532435781809822009-02-25T17:17:00.000-05:002009-02-25T17:19:27.514-05:00<P>Bond guru Bill Gross of PIMCO has released his latest <A href="http://www.pimco.com/LeftNav/Featured+Market+Commentary/IO/2009/Investment+Outlook+Bill+Gross+March+2009+Hairy+Lips+Sink+Ships.htm">Investment Outlook, for March, entitled "Hairy Lips Sink Ships"</A>.</P> <P>As to whether this is a recession or a depression, Bill says:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <P><EM>We don't know yet... Recessions are cyclical downturns of a relatively brief time frame, characterized by inventory corrections and addressed by low interest rates and mild doses of fiscal stimulus. Depressions are more extreme with double-digit levels of unemployment but defined more importantly by credit contraction and debt liquidation. The deflation that normally accompanies a depression is dangerous not because prices are going down, but because the "for sale" sign goes up on the credit markets which have always made capitalism possible. At the moment,&nbsp;... policymakers are attempting to prevent that. We shall see.</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-432753243578180982?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-31429188695454412982009-02-25T10:12:00.000-05:002009-02-25T10:14:53.988-05:00<P>I am endeavoring to track the current media mania of attempting to draw parallels between the current economic situation and <STRONG><EM>The Great Depression</EM></STRONG>. I am doing this by using <A href='http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&amp;um=1&amp;tab=bn&amp;scoring=n&amp;q="the+great+depression"&amp;btnG=Search+News'>Google News</A> to count the total number of "news" references to the phrase "The Great Depression" in the previous 24 hours.</P> <UL> <LI>1/10/2009: 411 hits <LI>1/30/2009: 319 hits <LI>2/6/2009: 308 hits <LI>2/25/2009:&nbsp;389 hits</LI></UL> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-3142918869545441298?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-7307248604056255122009-02-12T09:28:00.000-05:002009-02-12T09:30:46.552-05:00<P>Now that the stimulus bill is virtually a done deal, it is time to start thinking about what the next phase of stimulus should look like. The current stimulus package will have <EM>some</EM> positive effect on the ecnomy, but there is still a lot more painful restructuring of businesses needed that will leave <EM>millions</EM> more people out on the street in the coming months. Another 700,000 workers filed for unemployment insurance in the past week alone. The number of&nbsp;ex-workers on unemployment insurance is approaching 6 million. And there is no end in sight. Sure, there will be <EM>some</EM> firms that will begin rehiring over the next couple of months as some of the stimulus kicks in, but <EM>many</EM> firms will still be faced with declining revenues over those same months.</P> <P>The current stimulus package is a decent stopgap measure, but it is still only a partial solution. Even if it creates several million jobs over the next <EM>two years</EM>, there will continue to be <EM>millions</EM> of people with no significant income and <EM>many millions</EM> of those who still have jobs who become more frugal, further savaging consumer spending.</P> <P>By June, a lot of the reality of the current stimulus and ongoing restructuring of the economy will be somewhat more obvious, so that July might be an excellent timeframe for considering Phase II of stimulus.</P> <P>My current thinking is that a "Stimulus II" package should include:</P> <OL> <LI>Direct stimulus to consumers, on the order of $50 to $100 billion per <EM>month</EM> "until further notice". Sure, some people will save much of this, but that will help to shore up consumer balance sheets, which is a necessary component of getting the economy on a sounder footing. Besides, there are so many <EM>millions</EM> of people out of work for whom "saving" is not an option. This spending would phase out as real consumer income gradually and eventually improves.</LI> <LI>Increased government business investment spending on the order of $50 to $100 billion per <EM>month</EM>&nbsp;to spur demand for the goods and services of businesses. Businesses need to see higher demand and actual revenues before they start hiring in earnest. The simple reality is that we need a somewhat bigger government component in the economy to protect people from serious economic episodes such as this one. There is plenty of room for expansion of government services - paid for by the government, but provided by the private sector.</LI> <LI>Provide government funding to venture capital firms which are experiencing extreme difficulty raising funds from traditional sources (big banks, pension funds, and insurance companies) due to the credit crunch and skrinkage of the economy, on the order of $2 to $3 billion per month.</LI></OL> <P>That would be a start. I am sure that even more is needed. But, maybe not a lot more. Basically, we need to keep stimulating until unemployment is low again, and then <EM>gradually</EM> withdraw stimulus as the private sector picks up the slack.</P> <P>The key is that unless there is <EM>sustained</EM> stimulus, we risk facing a "1937" problem, where the U.S. actually began recovering from 1934 to 1937, but then ran out of steam and declined again and languished until another form of stimulus appeared (World War II.)</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-730724860405625512?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-68605092427758505772009-02-06T18:20:00.000-05:002009-02-06T18:26:38.575-05:00<P>I am endeavoring to track the current media mania of attempting to draw parallels between the current economic situation and The Great Depression. I am doing this by using <A href='http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&amp;um=1&amp;tab=bn&amp;scoring=n&amp;q="the+great+depression"&amp;btnG=Search+News'>Google News</A> to count the total number of "news" references to the phrase "The Great Depression" in the previous 24 hours. The good news is that for the second consecutive week there was a decline, from 319 hits a week ago to 308 hits.</P> <UL> <LI>1/10/2009: 411 hits</LI> <LI>1/30/2009: 319 hits</LI> <LI>2/6/2009: 308 hits</LI></UL> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-6860509242775850577?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-70527862155763815772009-02-06T18:08:00.000-05:002009-02-06T18:09:49.590-05:00<P>Yes, losing another 600,000 jobs in a single month is clearly painful, and we will continue to see significant losses in the coming months, but there is still nothing about the losses to-date to suggest that we are seeing anything other than a significant recession. Sure, the job losses are a big enough deal to spur the passage of a massive fiscal stimulus package, but the resulting stimulus will blunt a significant portion of the impact of the job losses on overall economic activity.</P> <P>The open question is whether enough of the stimulus will kick in within the first six months to actually prevent job losses and a gloomy business outlook from beginning to spiral down to the point where the damage to the overall economy does become a big deal and difficult to reverse within a couple of years. My suspicion is that the stimulus and other efforts (Treasury, Fed)&nbsp;will be enough to turn the tide. We will see in about six months.</P> <P>In short, there is no depression on the short-term horizon.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-7052786215576381577?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-53567772200930155442009-01-30T19:00:00.000-05:002009-01-30T19:02:06.497-05:00<P>Almost 18 months ago I wrote a post on <A href="http://isayjackkrup.blogspot.com/2007/08/need-to-rejuvenate-middle-class-and.html">the need to rejuvenate the dying middle class in America</A>, so I am glad to see that somebody in Washington has woken up to that reality as President Obama and VP Biden have announced the formation of a task force to study and hopefully "fix"&nbsp;the middle class - <A href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/strongmiddleclass/">the White House Task Force on Middle Class Working Families</A>. Whether their efforts will go anywhere is another matter, but at least they are taking a step in the right direction. <A href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog_post/about_the_task_force_1/">Limited details about the task force are available</A>. The short summary:</P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <P><EM>The Task Force is a major initiative targeted at raising the living standards of middle-class, working families in America. It is comprised of top-level administration policy makers, and in addition to regular meetings, it will conduct outreach sessions with representatives of labor, business, and the advocacy communities. The Task Force will be chaired by Vice President Joe Biden. The Vice President and members of the task force will work with a wide array of federal agencies that have responsibility for key issues facing the middle class and expedite administrative reforms, propose Executive orders, and develop legislative and policy proposals that can be of special importance to working families.</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Goals include:</P> <UL dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <LI>Expanding education and lifelong training opportunities</LI> <LI>Improving work and family balance</LI> <LI>Restoring labor standards, including workplace safety</LI> <LI>Helping to protect middle-class and working-family incomes</LI> <LI>Protecting retirement security</LI></UL> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Opixia.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-5356777220093015544?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-65535701496041688162009-01-30T18:25:00.000-05:002009-01-30T18:27:10.850-05:00<P>Ten days ago I used <A href='http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&amp;um=1&amp;tab=bn&amp;scoring=n&amp;q="the+great+depression"&amp;btnG=Search+News'>Google News</A> to count the total number of "news" references to the phrase "The Great Depression" in the previous 24 hours. I just redid the search and I see a decline to 319&nbsp;hits in the last 24 hours&nbsp;from 411&nbsp;hits in the 24-hour period ten days ago. This search includes noteworthy blogs as well as articles that were republications of various newswire articles.</P> <P>The absolute number means little other than a mania on the part of the media, but I'll check back in a week and see if there is a trend emerging or maybe even vanishing.</P> <P>This is only my second week observing this statistic, so it is too soon to call any trend.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-6553570149604168816?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-26180480452115137202009-01-20T11:01:00.000-05:002009-01-20T11:05:13.645-05:00<P>I used <A href='http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&amp;um=1&amp;tab=bn&amp;scoring=n&amp;q="the+great+depression"&amp;btnG=Search+News'>Google News</A> to count the total number of "news" references to the phrase "The Great Depression" in the past 24 hours. The phrase occurred 411 times in that 24-hour period. That includes noteworthy blogs as well as articles that were republications of various newswire articles.</P> <P>The absolute number means little other than a mania on the part of the media, but I'll check back in a week and see if there is a trend emerging or maybe even vanishing.</P> <P>Incidentally, there were 1,477 <A href="http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&amp;um=1&amp;tab=bn&amp;scoring=n&amp;q=recession&amp;btnG=Search+News">references to "recession"</A> in that same 24-hour period.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-2618048045211513720?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-80567020316631252592009-01-20T08:54:00.000-05:002009-01-20T08:55:40.432-05:00<P>The economy must be on the verge of perking up -- I have only seen <EM>four</EM> references to The Great Depression this morning. That is a dramatic improvement compared to the past couple of months. And one of those references was actually simply saying that people are getting tired of constantly comparing everything to The Great Depression.</P> <P>Granted, our economic future is contingent on the Federal Reserve and the incoming administration making a lot of wise decisions, but that is the way it always is.</P> <P>The overall economy is "the sum of all curves." Some of the curves (e.g., employment, consumer spending, decline of weak companies and poor credit risks) are continuing to trend downwards, but other curves (e.g., mortgage refinance, money supply, Federal Reserve support for various forms of finance) are trending upwards. Sure, the downwards-sloping curves continue to overwhelm the upwards-sloping curves, but that is the way it always is even shortly before an overall turning point.</P> <P>The Federal Reserve, Treasury, and Congress clearly have plenty of work to do, but the simple fact that there is more work to do or that not 100% of prior efforts have been 100% successful is not a valid reason to abandon confidence in the efforts to come or the value of the work that has already been done.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-8056702031663125259?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-31021671196892345362009-01-18T19:38:00.001-05:002009-01-18T19:38:58.314-05:00<P>At a public philosophy discussion that I was moderating on Thursday evening one participant started to make a point saying "<EM>In the Depression, ...</EM>" I interrupted him and asked whether he was referring to the current depression or the last one. My query got a few laughs, but at least some of the laughter was probably nervous laughter. Maybe that about sums up where people feel that we are, not convinced that the current economic situation is necessarily headed for a full-blown depression, but not absolutely convinced otherwise either.</P> <P>The next year will tell us what we are really dealing with.</P> <P>I continue to belief that we are dealing with merely a "recession with adjectives" and that the combination of the actions of the Federal Reserve, fiscal stimulus, corporate restructuring, the vast amounts of money still in private hands, and just the passage of time will restore at least a facsimile of growth shortly.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-3102167119689234536?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-9414995156647811612009-01-02T19:32:00.000-05:002009-01-02T19:33:08.387-05:00<P>The <A href="http://www.ism.ws/ISMReport/MfgROB.cfm?navItemNumber=12942">ISM Manufacturing report</A> today was quite gloomy, with an article in <EM>The New York Times</EM> by Bettina Wassener entitled "<A href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/03/business/worldbusiness/03yuan.html?_r=1">Manufacturing Reports Show Depth of Global Downturn</A>" telling us that "<EM>manufacturing continued to slump amid <STRONG>the worst slowdown since the Great Depression</STRONG></EM>" and that the ISM Manufacturing index "<EM>fell to the lowest level in 28 years in December</EM>." 28 years points back to 1980.&nbsp;<EM>The Times</EM> quotes ISM as saying that "<EM>New orders have contracted for 13 consecutive months, and are at <STRONG>the lowest level on record going back to January 1948</STRONG>.</EM>" 1948 was 60 years ago. Awfully gloomy stuff.</P> <P>While it is true that manufacturing is an important sector of the U.S. economy it is worth noting that the U.S. economy is now <EM>primarily</EM> a service economy, so that weakness in the manufacturing sector is not necessarily an indicator of weakness ahead for the overall U.S. economy. Next week we will get the ISM non-manufacturing (services) report, which will also likely show weakness in the services sector of the U.S. economy for the month of December. The ISM Manufacturing report notes that "<EM>if the PMI for December (32.4 percent) is annualized, it corresponds to a 2.7 percent decrease in real GDP annually</EM>." That is bad, -2.7% real GDP, but that is only if manufacturing does not improve in the months ahead.</P> <P>The real bottom line here is that everybody <EM>knew</EM> that December was a bad month for the economy. Detroit had slammed on the brakes and remains near a dead stop, but later in the month the bailout funds should enable the car companies to get started again and we may have a near-$1 trillion fiscal stimulus package on the way as well, so I would not use December as a leading indicator of whether manufacturing or the overall U.S. economy is headed in the months ahead.</P> <P>Yes, the economic reports for December are truly dismal, but still not so bad as to indicate that a true depression is a likely scenario.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-941499515664781161?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-1190954506827903752008-12-28T20:32:00.001-05:002008-12-28T20:32:33.190-05:00<P>Despite the fact that many banks, some businesses, and some consumers have had liquidity problems over the past year, the simple fact is that overall there is still way too much money sloshing around in the economy for a depression to take root in the near term. Sure, some people are short, but others have more than enough to spare. There are several trillion dollars in money market funds alone. For a depression to take root we would need to see a substantial chunk of the current money supply simply evaporate. Sure, that <EM>could</EM> happen, but it has not happened to date. As long as the Federal Reserve and Congress succeed with the various stimulus programs already underway and currently anticipated, we will be unlikely to see the kind of evaporation of liquidity in the overall economy that would be needed for a true depression to take root and thrive.</P> <P>Sure, the Federal Reserve and Congress still could manage to stumble and make enough policy mistakes that could lead to a depression, but we are not seeing any evidence of such mistakes, yet. In fact, some people are arguing that the Fed is pumping <EM>too much</EM> liquidity into the economy.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-119095450682790375?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-24062951798172118632008-12-25T20:30:00.000-05:002008-12-25T20:31:41.919-05:00<P>Even in the best of economies there are a lot of weaker companies that manage to survive and get funded by so-called junk bonds. But, when times get tough, these companies run into trouble real quick since people are reluctant to buy lots of junk debt when these weak companies are at much higher risk of failure. It may make sense that weak companies should perish in a darwinian world, but there are a lot of people employed by these companies and the companies spend a lot of money buying goods and services, so failures can cause a lot of harm to the economy. Until now, we have been hearing about data that is the worst <EM>since</EM> the Great Depression, but now we have a data point that is worse <EM>than</EM> the Great Depression. Gary Shilling says that "<EM>Junk bond spreads vs. Treasurys now imply a 21% default rate, <STRONG>higher than in 1933 at the bottom of the Depression.</STRONG></EM>" That <EM>could</EM> mean trouble. Not just worse than the depression, but worse than the worst point of the depression.</P> <P>The open issue is whether the mad rush to quality by investors has simply caused investors to dump junk bonds regardless of their likelihood of default or whether the fundamentals of these weak companies are really so bad that more that one out of five are in fact likely to fail. I simply do not have any data to answer that question.</P> <P>Ultimately, we will be able to infer the answer from whether payroll employment continues to fall by 500,000 or more for more than a few more months.</P> <P>I would also note that although the Federal Reserve is currently supporting the commercial paper market, that is only for <EM>high quality</EM> commercial paper, not the comercial paper issues by companies whose debt is considered junk. So, weaker companies could be in a lot of trouble.</P> <P>Quite a few of these companies can probably squeak by for a few months, but going more than a few months may break the camel's back for junk-funded companies.</P> <P>Sure, massive fiscal stimulus will help the overall economy, but it may mean that the government has to pump in even more massive doses of money to compensate for a significant failure rate for junk-funded companies, since fiscal stimulus is unlikely to flow directly into very many junk-funded companies.</P> <P>I have not heard anybody make an estimate of what fraction of the conomy is composed of junk-funded companies.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-2406295179817211863?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-87949900398544483312008-12-21T20:31:00.000-05:002008-12-21T20:32:37.101-05:00<P>It is a measure of the magnitude of the current "recession with adjectives" that the projected and rumored size of the fiscal stimulus plan continues to grow. The latest rumor is that the goal will be to "create or save" 3 million rather than merely 2.5 million jobs over the next two years and that the price tag over two years is now projected at $775 billion in contrast to the original $500 to $700 billion. And, the plan is still evolving as the economy continues to deteriorate.</P> <P>An open question is how much of that money will be front-loaded for the first year and even the first six months.</P> <P>Another open question is what a follow-on revision might look like if after six months the result is too weak or the underlying economic problems turn out to be significantly worse than currently anticipated.</P> <P>Not to mention the fact that the net job loss might be more jobs than the stimulus will supposedly create.</P> <P>Not to mention the fact that there are millions of people who are underemployed or have given up hope of finding jobs as a result of the quirky economy of the past eight years and are not counted in the official unemployment number even though they are not working at anything near their peak of productivity.</P> <P>The big question is how much money will be deployed in the first three or four months and how quickly that money results in an increase in economic activity by the time we hit the six-month milestone and need to judge whether to adjust the course of the stimulus plan.</P> <P>Still, this is a good first step. There really is nothing better to do than to give the economy a good swift kick, the stronger the kick the better. And if the first kick is not enough, keep on kicking.</P> <P>This kind of approach is very likely to assure that the economy does not slip into a depression.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-8794990039854448331?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-59639670857612737802008-12-19T14:23:00.000-05:002008-12-19T14:24:57.399-05:00<P>One of the factors that makes this "recession with adjectives" so different is the extreme degree of financial leveraging that is pervasive in the economy. Businesses with excessive debt loads. Consumers with huge mortgages and tons of credit card debt. Banks with insufficient and illiquid capital. Heavily leveraged hedge funds. Investors heavily into commodities (which are typically&nbsp;leveraged). Not to mention government debt. Part of the reason for the sharp pullback in economic activity is that there was an excess of activity due to the extra capital "created" by all of the leveraging and now that leveraging is being removed in a rather disorderly manner. This painful deleveraging process will continue for some indeterminate period. Bankruptcy hastens the process. Renegotiation of interest and maybe even principle moves the process along, but at only a slightly faster than a natural paydown of debt. Bailouts and "stimulus" helps as well. And, unfortunately, even as deleveraging proceeds, some businesses and consumers are going even deeper into debt due to lost income, revenue and jobs.</P> <P>The big question is whether the necessary deleveraging of the excess leveraging of the past five years will be completed promptly and reasonably orderly to end the recession within the next year or so, or whether the process stalls out and we slip into Japan-style "lost decade" or even a true depression.</P> <P>It looks as if the likely scenario will be a partial deleveraging over the next two years, sufficient to enable the economy to be semi-healthy again. This being America, a disturbing degree of leveraging will persist, but not sufficient to push the economy into a "lost decade" or depression.</P> <P>The most important factor is getting the banking and the rest of the financial system solvent again. The Federal Reserve has been stepping in to substitute its own solvency and liquidity, and that will continue and be sufficient to hold the financial system together over the next two years, but eventually we need to see the private sector once again be able to pick up the slack.</P> <P>In short, leveraging made the economy look stronger than it was over the past five years and now the deleveraging is making the economy look a lot worse. Fed action, fiscal stimulus, bailouts, bankruptcies, and restructuring will gradually repair the economy and most likely assure that the economy does not slip into a lost decade or outright depression.</P> <P>Still, deleveraging is one of the key factors to keep an eye on. For example, in the case of GM, they must figure out how to reduce their debt load by at least a factor of three if not four or even five to assure not just that they can survive, but to enable them to thrive as well. Bankruptcy can do that, but they may be able to convince bondholders that they would get an even worse deal in an outright bankruptcy. That is just one example.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-5963967085761273780?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-47123904913083589852008-12-16T19:02:00.000-05:002008-12-16T19:03:38.272-05:00<P>Over the past few months there has been quite a stream of media articles that basically say "This is the worst &lt;whatever&gt; since the Great Depression." For almost any &lt;whatever&gt; that you want to fill in. For example, a <EM>Bloomberg</EM> article by Whitney Kisling entitled "<A href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&amp;sid=aYbbzNVE3efU&amp;refer=home">U.S. Stocks Rally, Led by Banks, as Fed Cuts Rate to Record Low</A>" says "<EM>The S&amp;P 500 has fallen 38 percent in 2008, <STRONG>poised for its worst year since the Great Depression</STRONG>, after losses and writedowns at the biggest global financial companies reached almost $1 trillion and earnings at U.S. companies dropped for five straight quarters, <STRONG>matching the longest streak on record</STRONG>.</EM>"</P> <P>Now just because anything is the worst <EM>since</EM> the last depression does not mean that we are <EM>in</EM> a depression, but it does suggest that we may not be very far away.</P> <P>The talk is now that the U.S. economy may need a full $1 trillion in stimulus over the next two years and that $700 billion would merely be a starting point highlights that the U.S. economy is still in a fragile state that <EM>could</EM> very easily and quickly slide into a depression-like slump if that stimulus were not in the offing.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-4712390491308358985?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-63905745608119568692008-12-16T17:28:00.000-05:002008-12-16T17:29:24.932-05:00<P>Sure, there has been a bear market over the past year, but with all of their resources and sophistication you would have thought that the top university endowment funds would have repositioned themselves to avoid the brunt of the bear market and financial crisis. But, no, they in fact managed to pre-position themselves in a variety of "alternative" investments which in fact became very illiquid and resulted in dramatic paper losses which would be much worse if they actually tried to liquidate many of these positions in such assets as mortgage-backed securities, real estate, commodities and natural resources, and hedge funds. Harvard, Yale, Michigan, Columbia, you name them, they all have whopping paper losses, upwards of 25% to 30% and potentially more. What all of this illustrates is that the financial system and investment landscape has broken down to an unprecedented degree that is normally only associated with a depression.</P> <P>Why did this happen? It happened simply because traditional common stocks were no longer attractive to so-called "institutional" investors, resulting in an excessive level of over-investment in so-called "alternative" investments, which help to fuel the real estate, commodities, and asset-backed securities "booms". Unfortunately, a lot of those alternative investments have proven to be one-way or dead-end streets with bursting bubbles at their ends.</P> <P>What all of this means is that our financial system and investment landscape is seriously out of whack and in serious need of restructuring. A simply bailout will not do the trick, even $1 trillion would not be enough, but we may need to get the economy basically limping again before it will be strong enough for serious restructuring.</P> <P>A failure to perform all of the needed restructuring would be a sure recipe for a depression, but I feel confident that we have enough smart people on the job now to be reasonably confident that we will have a much more sound financial system and investment landscape a few years from now. Still, there is plenty of room for Congress and others to make things even worse than they already are.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-6390574560811956869?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-9932929142437827322008-12-16T12:38:00.000-05:002008-12-16T12:39:21.888-05:00<P>I see increasing references in the media to deflation, but the simple truth is that we are a long way from true deflation. Sure, headline consumer prices declined by -1.0% in October and now -1.7% in November and that seems awfully deflationary, but we need to look to core prices to determine the underlying trend. Just as the Federal Reserve "ignored" high inflation when energy and commodities prices were soaring, we now need to "ignore" large price declines as energy and commodities prices revert back to their normal range before the commodities speculation took off a couple of years ago. In fact, ex of food and energy price changes, the inflation rate was flat in November after being down very slightly in October and year-over-year prices are up 2.0% and up 0.4% if the past three months are annualized.</P> <P>In short, we are in fact seeing some welcome disinflation but are we are&nbsp;not yet seeing true deflation. Core consumer prices would have to come down substantially to indicate true deflation. Even if core prices decline for several months, that would not be enough to unwind much of the increase over the past three years with the commodities boom.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-993292914243782732?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-84137133839172797932008-12-15T17:18:00.000-05:002008-12-15T17:19:40.200-05:00<P>Most sensible people have little trouble seeing the wisdom of bailing out the Detroit car companies, as distasteful as that seems, but there are quite a number of Republicans who simply do not get it and seem determined to pursue ideology over pragmatism. Such a bias in favor of ideology is in fact one of the ways that a recession can get turned into a depression. In 1930 the Federal Reserve was determined that "strong money" was the way to go. The so-called liquidationists were determined to take a hands-off, darwinian approach to letting the markets fix themselves. We know how that movie ended. So, a big question is the extent to which these Republican neo-liquidationists will seek to block efforts to stimulate the economy. If they are successful, the current "recession with adjectives" will have the prospect of turning into an outright depression.</P> <P>Make no mistake, the Republicans have the best of intentions, but that does not make them right. They are simply grossly overly-optimistic about the pace at which a liquidationist approach can succeed. Japan had its "Lost Decade" in the 1990's. I do not think that the average American is ready to sign up for such a cold-turkey approach to economic recovery, even if it is in theory possible.</P> <P>The real threat here is not the Republican liquidationists ("Let them file for bankruptcy!") per se, but a lack of bipartisanship in Congress. Barney Frank did work with the Bush administration on the Detroit bailout bill, leading House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to claim that it was a bipartisan effort, but they failed to work with enough moderate Republicans to assure that they had a bill that moderate Republicans (non-liquidationists) could support.</P> <P>So, come January 20, 2009, the test will be to see how committed Barack Obama is to true bipartisanship. I think he is and that he is very good at reading the writing on the wall, but the open question is the degree to which he can "persuade" the more liberal Democrats to comproimise sufficiently to appeal to enough moderate Republicans to garner the 60 votes needed to get anything done in the Senate. I have high confidence that he can do it, but he is going to have to prove that I am right.</P> <P>A $500 billion stimulus bill may seem like a slam-dunk in the current economic climate, but the liquidationists and their allies won't agree with a lot of the more liberal components of such a bill if it is not carefully crafted to be palatable to center-right conservatives.</P> <P>In summary, I do believe that Barack Obama will steer us on a course to avoid a depression or "lost decade", but he needs to rack up some time at the helm to convince people.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-8413713383917279793?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-88017531909862245082008-12-15T16:32:00.000-05:002008-12-15T16:36:05.461-05:00<P>Usually, in a garden-variety inventory adjustment recession it is the low-level workers who get hit the hardest and the wealthy seem to just get wealthier. But in the current "recession with adjectives" even the rich are getting hit and hit very hard. Many billions of dollars have been tied up in auction-rate securities. Hedge funds are getting slaughtered. Alternative investment strategies are failing left and right.&nbsp;The Bernie Madoff $50 billion Ponzi scheme is merely the latest in a long list of bad financial events for the so-called "rich."</P> <P>Not that the rich need any sympathy, but their money usually helps to fund new business ventures and charities, which in turn spend the money. Their financial setbacks of the past year have already made a significant dent in venture investment and funding of charities. Unless their plight turns around soon, the accumulated loss of a source of funding will be an ongoing drain on the economy.</P> <P>This loss of economic "juice" will not cause a depression on its own, but it adds a few more negative adjectives to the "recession with adjectives" and means that there is yet another economic niche that will need to be filled with government stimulus in order to bring the economy back to even minimal health.</P> <P>The bottom line is that this decline in investable wealth of the rich is yet another sign that a depression is a distinct possibility unless the government acts very boldly and promptly and in a sustained manner.</P> <P>Barack Obama is about to embark on the adventure of a lifetime.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-8801753190986224508?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-24912501479344229702008-12-11T19:57:00.000-05:002008-12-11T19:59:10.196-05:00<P>I do appreciate the desire of the incoming administration to put a lot of resources into infrastructure improvements, but the accelerated pace of job loss strongly suggests that even $350 billion over the next year focused on infrastructure will simply not be enough to "trickle" around to the full economy fast enough to recover from current job loss or job loss to be expected next year before the stimulus kicks in strongly enough to induce employers to stop cutting jobs, let alone start hiring again in a dramatic fashion. Besides infrastructure investment that will directly create certain kinds of jobs and boost certain sectors of the economy, there needs to be direct stimulus to consumers on an ongoing monthly basis until we see at least a hint of health returning to the jobs market. Something on the order of $50 billion per month is needed, like, now, or starting ASAP in February. That number could decline as employment picks up, but it actually could take two full years or more to recover from the business confidence destruction we have seen to date. That would be $600 billion per year. And that would be on top of the $250 to $350 billion per year for infrastructure investment.</P> <P>So, we are potentially looking at close $850 to $950 billion per year, close to $1 trillion per year, for at least two years.</P> <P>Seriously, that is the magnitude on the destruction that has been done to our economy.</P> <P>Absent any significant stimulus to support and resurrect the economy, it could take five to ten years to gradually rebuild the economy. Such an extended period of contraction and very slow growth would certainly qualify as at least a low-grade depression.</P> <P>The open question is what will happen to employment and income and economic activity if the stimulus falls far short of that number and amounts to only $250 billion for instructure investment. The result would probably be something on the order of half a million jobs lost every month for upwards of a year and a half, spiking unemployment to 15% or above, and for a number of years. That may not qualify for a true depression, but try convincing anybody who is experiencing the loss of job and income.</P> <P>The $500 to $700 billion number from earlier in the fall was before we knew that Detroit was in such deep trouble and before many of the current job cut announcements.</P> <P>And if Congress botches the Detroit bailout and car sales continue to plunge, the outlook will only get worse and the required stimulus will only grow larger.&nbsp;But the prospect of Detroit imploding may have the advantage of convincing people that more stimulus is needed.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-2491250147934422970?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-53909639046307061992008-12-10T11:06:00.000-05:002008-12-10T11:07:59.344-05:00<P>The Great Depression in the U.S. began roughly with the stock market crash in October 1929 and lasted until the onset of World War II, roughly somewhere between 1939 or the early 1940's. That was all considered one depression. But, that period in fact encompassed two distinct business cycles or recessions, making it somewhat problematic to contrast a recession with a depression.</P> <P>According to the <A href="http://www.nber.org/cycles/cyclesmain.html">Business Cycle Dating Committee of the National Bureau of Economic Research</A>, the first recession lasted from August 1929 until March 1933. That was the worst of the depression. Then the economy actually rebounded strongly, hitting a new peak of industrial production in early 1937, higher than 1929. But then the economy fell apart again, with a second recession from May 1937 until June 1938. To be sure, the trough in 1938 was well above the depression bottom in 1933, but still deep by traditional recessionary standards.</P> <P>One of the lessons here is that even if $500 billion of fiscal stimulus enables a&nbsp;recovery from the current recession, it is very possible that we could see a second recession within a few years unless the fiscal stimulus actually results in sufficient structural change and&nbsp;the creation of sufficient <EM>sustainable</EM> jobs to sustain the economy as that fiscal stimulus peters out. Sure, it is easy to "create" construction jobs with government spending, but many of those jobs will promptly evaporate once the government spending ceases.</P> <P>So, maybe the key takeway is that the fiscal stimulus may need to last for five or even ten years, until the underlying structure of the U.S. economy is actually truly "sound" again, and not based on mountains of debt and complex financial instruments -- or dependent on government spending. I suspect that we actually will need to permanently include about $250 billion or more of that fiscal stimulus in the federal budget, if for no other purpose than to enable the private sector to withstand future financial, economic, and political shocks.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-5390963904630706199?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-35565132489359766522008-12-10T10:31:00.000-05:002008-12-10T10:32:43.453-05:00<P>Further illustrating the point that this is not a garden-variety recession, <A href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&amp;sid=ado8P..GCtC4&amp;refer=home">economist Martin Feldstein refers to it</A> as "<EM><STRONG>a recession with adjectives</STRONG>... A deep recession, a long recession, a damaging recession.</EM>" Still, maybe it will need a second or even third level of adjectives before it even begins to register as a depression.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-3556513248935976652?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-70107883772756080452008-12-09T15:56:00.000-05:002008-12-09T15:57:57.534-05:00<P>One of the ways that a depression is different from a garden-variety recession is that confidence in formerly rock-solid institutions gets so badly shaken that they crumble and need to be replaced with wholly new institutions. In a recession, most of the institutions remain at least relatively solid and it is merely the overall level of economic activity that is the major concern.</P> <P>So, where are we now?</P> <P>Well, we have certainly seen a hefty amount of shaken confidence in our banks, Wall Street, the value of housing, and a President-elect being chosen after running on a platform of radical "change" in how Washington does business.</P> <P>Still, despite the hits to confidence, there is still a strong level of confidence in many of our public institutions.</P> <P>Sure, we had a couple of bank runs and even runs on money market funds, and sure, the Federal Reserve, Treasury, and FDIC, were forced to dramatically shore up the financial system, but the original institutional structure does still stand, and it stands with a renewed level of confidence. Sure, the sytem <EM>could</EM> have collapsed, but the point is that a collapse was <EM>averted</EM>.</P> <P>Sure, people do really want to see "change" in Washington, but they want <EM>some</EM> change and they want "smart" change, but not an outright revolution.</P> <P>With all that has happened, the net effect is that we are seeing incremental, evolutionary changes, but not a wholesale, clean-slate revolution. The Great Depression ushered in the New Deal, but we are merely enhancing a lot of those same institutions.</P> <P>Sure, Wall Street investment banks have vanished as a breed, technically, but in reality they have simply moved under the umbrella of the banking system overseen by the Federal Reserve. Yes, this says that the current episode is much worse than a garden-variety recession, but still not quite to the level of a depression.</P> <P>There is still plenty of time for further financial and economic problems to develop, but the question will remain whether we see the kind of undermining of confidence in institutions that would be expected in a true depression where institutions completely fail on a widespread scale.</P> <P>In short, we are not yet "there", but it remains technically possible that we could still stumble into a depression.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-7010788377275608045?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-78963392313673256412008-12-08T11:15:00.000-05:002008-12-08T11:16:21.103-05:00<P>Although it does appear that a depression is technically possible, I believe that it is very unlikely for the simple reason that there are still too many people around (including Bernanke)&nbsp;who know a lot about the last depression and its causes&nbsp;and they are committed to pumping enough stimulus into the financial system and the economy to avoid a recurrence.</P> <P>It is still possible that a divided Congress could produce a flawed sequence of stimulus packages, but it is much more likely that they will make enough of the right moves to avert a depression, especially since the Democrats have already indicated a propensity to ramp up spending.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-7896339231367325641?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-64230661312309874762008-12-08T09:22:00.000-05:002008-12-08T09:23:24.251-05:00<P>I have not yet run across any really good definitions for an economic depression. In fact, ten years ago when I was reading about The Great Depression, I saw references to the fact that "depression" was once the standard term for what today we call a "recession."&nbsp;The question is whether there is a qualitative difference, or whether the distinction is simply quantitative and whether a depression is simply a recession that is much worse and much longer than a "typical" recession. A recession is usually considered "temporary", which a depression tends to be "prolonged."</P> <P>I will start working on my own definition.</P> <P>One important quality is that the economy usually bounces back to a new high level of activity fairly quickly (a few months to a year or two), while a depression "destroys" enough economic capacity so that it may take more than a few years to restore the level of output, employment, and income to its previous peak, and that recovery is only after a prolonged decline to the "bottom", maybe two years or more.</P> <P>A typical recession results in temporary job loss, such as factories firing workers due to excess inventory and then rehiring those same workers once inventory levels have declined to a level requiring significant replenishment. A depression would tend to involve widespread permanent destruction of jobs such that people are forced to seek employment at new positions that did not exist before the decline, and obviously that process will not tend to be rapid, especially if reduced credit and capital result in slower formation of new firms and new positions.</P> <P>Note that Obama is talking about creating new "green" jobs, rather than bringing back more jobs to Detroit or residential housing construction.</P> <P>In short, a typical recession tends to be "cyclical" (inventory fluctuations)&nbsp;while a depression tends to be disruptive and "structural."</P> <P>Another question is whether a depression could be relatively brief, such that it could actually be shorter than a "bad" recession. For example, could the destruction of many "old economy" jobs in favor of gradual creation of "new economy" and "green" jobs qualify the current episode as a depression, even if massive fiscal stimulus permits the economy to bounce back within a year.</P> <P>That begs the question of whether the economy would be headed for a depression if massive fiscal stimulus (coupled with massive Federal Reserve support) was not in the offing. So, even if we do not see the kind of declines in output, employment, and income usaully associated with a depression, would the level of stimulus indicate that an "imminent depression" was in fact a plausible possibility.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-6423066131230987476?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-84189650587417411122008-12-07T20:04:00.000-05:002008-12-07T20:05:31.632-05:00<P>You do have to wonder what the state of the economy really is if even Google feels the need to tighten its belt. From an article in <EM>The Wall Street Journal</EM> by Jessica Vascellaro and Scott Morrison entitled "<A href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122826503489174369.html?mod=googlenews_wsj">Google Gears Down for Tougher Times</A>":</P> <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <P><EM>So with the U.S. economy in a recession, Google is ratcheting back spending and cutting new projects. "We have to behave as though we don't know" what's going to happen, says Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt. The company will curtail the "dark matter," he says, projects that "haven't really caught on" and "aren't really that exciting." He says the company is "not going to give" an engineer 20 people to work with on certain experimental projects anymore. "When the cycle comes back," he says, "we will be able to fund his brilliant vision."</EM></P></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I have to cringe when I read the words "<EM>When the cycle comes back</EM>" since they make it sound as if something extremely precious has just evaporated in front of our eyes and that maybe even Google is filled more with "hope" than a hard-core plan.</P> <P>For some reason, this made me think of IBM, which thrived in The Great Depression since the New Deal government programs fostered a true renaissance for data processing equipment with all of those new social programs that needed to track people.</P> <P>This leaves me wondering what "digital" technologies may blossom over Obama's first term. We do know that he intends to spend a lot on green power, alternative energies, and the Smart Grid. It will be interesting to see what happens with government spending on other, non-power "digital" technologies.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-8418965058741741112?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-6684020906569653432008-12-06T10:03:00.000-05:002008-12-06T10:04:21.474-05:00<P>I revised the name of this blog to "Economic Depression Watch" since "depression" is also or more commonly a reference to a mental health problem. For example, do a Google search on "depression" or "depression watch" and you will find mostly mental health results.</P> <P>Another reason for the change is that the <A href="http://www.DepressionWatch.com">www.DepressionWatch.com</A> domain name was already taken.</P> <P>I have also registered <A href="http://www.EconomicDepressionWatch.com">www.EconomicDepressionWatch.com</A>&nbsp;with stealth redirection to this blog, but it may take some time for domain name to become functional.</P> <P>Now, none of this is to say that an economic depression cannot interact with mental health, but that is another story.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-668402090656965343?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7047259301600255203.post-43799282335424720152008-12-06T09:31:00.000-05:002008-12-06T09:33:23.110-05:00<P>This new blog will focus exclusively on examining the many factors which could determine whether the U.S. economy could possibly slip into a depression in the near future.</P> <P>My personal opinion is that it will not happen, but it is technically possible even if it is very unlikely.</P> <P>Stay tuned.</P> <P>-- <A href="mailto:Jack@Finaxyz.com">Jack Krupansky</A></P><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/7047259301600255203-4379928233542472015?l=economicdepressionwatch.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>Jack Krupanskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17254264642831755180noreply@blogger.com0