|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 11:10 pm Post subject: The consensus is moving... |
 |
|
The consensus is moving from the soft vs. hard landing debate towards how severe the hard landing will be
| Quote: |
While a few months ago analysts were still heatedly debating whether the US would experience a soft landing or a hard landing (a recession) the center of the macro debate has now clearly shifted away from soft landing versus hard landing discussion to a recognition that a hard landing is the most likely scenario; thus, increasingly now the debate is on how deep and severe the forthcoming hard landing will be.
And in the academic camp some of the most senior economists in the profession � Bob Shiller, Marty Feldstein, Larry Summers, Paul Krugman � are all in various degrees in the hard landing camp or very concerned about a hard landing.
So it is time to move away from the soft landing vs. hard landing discussion and start considering seriously how deep the coming recession will be; in the view of this authors the 2008 recession will be more deep, protracted and painful than the short recessions of 1990-1991 and 2001; this time around � unlike 2001 when only tech investment faltered - most components of aggregate demand are under threat: falling residential investment, falling capex spending by the corporate sector and now evidence of a sharp slowdown and near stall of private consumption that accounts for 70% of GDP. When the US saving-less and debt burdened US consumer is now under threat the risk of a more protracted and severe recession than the mild one of 2001 are significant.
So the US consumer is indeed at a tipping point and the overall holiday sales will end up showing the weakness in the sector that represents over 70% of GDP. If the saving-less US consumer falters � as it soon will being hit by falling home prices, falling HEW, rising debt servicing ratios, high debt burdens, high oil prices, sharply falling confidence, a slackening labor market � a recession becomes inevitable.
Indeed, as reported by the WSJ, the consensus among professional economists is now shifting towards the hard landing scenario as they put the chances of a recession at 38%, the highest in more than three years:
|
http://www.rgemonitor.com/blog/roubini/231693 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 11:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The harder the landing the more severe the defeat of the GOP will be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 11:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| The harder the landing the more severe the defeat of the GOP will be. |
And the more political pressure for populist reforms.
*shudders*
[Please don't let Edwards get into power, I don't want another FDR!] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 11:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, the GOP will burn for this.
But I would put my money on Obama as the likely winner at this point. I don't think he is a populist at all. Edwards would make a decent VP. But Obama is the man right now. I trust him not to mess up the economy even worse than it is now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 12:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
And the more political pressure for populist reforms.
*shudders*
[Please don't let Edwards get into power, I don't want another FDR!] |
You're right about pressure for populist reforms. That is RP's only hope. That is what makes me nervous.
I would LOVE another FDR. (I've never taken Edwards seriously as a candidate so have totally ignored him.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 7:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| thepeel wrote: |
Yes, the GOP will burn for this.
But I would put my money on Obama as the likely winner at this point. I don't think he is a populist at all. Edwards would make a decent VP. But Obama is the man right now. I trust him not to mess up the economy even worse than it is now. |
How can he not when he will continue this impossibly expensive war and expand it inot Iran? Barack Obama said he can not guarantee the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq by 2013. On Sept. 4, 2007, BO said, "Hit Iran where it hurts." "Americans need to come together to confront the challenge posed by Iran. The war in Iraq has strengthened Iran which poses for us the greatest strategic challenge in the Middle East in a generation. Iran supports violent groups and sectarians in Iraq. Iran fuels terror and extremism in the Middle East. Iran is making progress on a nuclear program in defiance of the international community. Iran calls for Israel to be wiped off the map." He follows this up by calling for a pre-emptive military strike on Iran.
On Aug. 3, 2007, speaking at Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of the International School for Scholars, BO called for a US attack on Pakistan, more troops in Afghanistan, and unilateral attacks on Iran and Pakistan, and strengthening the US military and intelligence apparatus across the planet.
You could not fit a sliver of paper in between the ideologies of Dick Cheney and Barack Obama. They are both beholden to the same corporate war interests. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 8:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Well, that isn't good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 9:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| thepeel wrote: |
Yes, the GOP will burn for this.
But I would put my money on Obama as the likely winner at this point. I don't think he is a populist at all. Edwards would make a decent VP. But Obama is the man right now. I trust him not to mess up the economy even worse than it is now. |
How can he not when he will continue this impossibly expensive war and expand it inot Iran? Barack Obama said he can not guarantee the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq by 2013. On Sept. 4, 2007, BO said, "Hit Iran where it hurts." "Americans need to come together to confront the challenge posed by Iran. The war in Iraq has strengthened Iran which poses for us the greatest strategic challenge in the Middle East in a generation. Iran supports violent groups and sectarians in Iraq. Iran fuels terror and extremism in the Middle East. Iran is making progress on a nuclear program in defiance of the international community. Iran calls for Israel to be wiped off the map." He follows this up by calling for a pre-emptive military strike on Iran.
On Aug. 3, 2007, speaking at Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of the International School for Scholars, BO called for a US attack on Pakistan, more troops in Afghanistan, and unilateral attacks on Iran and Pakistan, and strengthening the US military and intelligence apparatus across the planet. |
Right. That's why I'll be voting for Richardson. He won't win, so I'll end up voting for Hillary, anyways.
| Quote: |
| You could not fit a sliver of paper in between the ideologies of Dick Cheney and Barack Obama. They are both beholden to the same corporate war interests. |
That's going a bit far, no? Barack is green. He hasn't ripened yet (perhaps). He has a lot of talent, but like JFK, his foreign policy would be a disaster if elected right now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 9:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
And the more political pressure for populist reforms.
*shudders*
[Please don't let Edwards get into power, I don't want another FDR!] |
You're right about pressure for populist reforms. That is RP's only hope. That is what makes me nervous.
I would LOVE another FDR. (I've never taken Edwards seriously as a candidate so have totally ignored him.) |
FDR is the main cause of the problems we have now. He made the Great Depression "great" and the US only got out when he was too distracted by the war to continue to hamper the economy and prolong the depression.
FDR failed to reverse the failures of the Federal Reserve that began under Wilson. He instead institutionalized and made those failures permanent. Then he expanded and built a house of cards upon them. That house was further undermined by Nixon and years of overspending.
That house of cards is now falling and only a return to sound economic principles can stop it. It may actually be too late for anyone to stop the collapse. A cleansing recession is needed to shake out 7 decades of failed socialistic policies.
The Ron Paul revolution is all about what happens after the fall. We can have a world of liberty, peace and prosperity, building from what's left after this next recession.
But, if we elect anyone other than Ron Paul (or another libertarian), we are likely to see the demise of western democracy and liberty as we have known it, a massive depression that makes the great depression look like a picnic, and a gradual spiraling down of living standards from a much reduced level following the depression.
Ron Paul is a constitutionalist libertarian. His policies are the opposite of populist. Populist ideology is a mild form of socialism. Yata, if you cannot learn to use the correct meaning of words, your comments will be only drivel. I know that you are not at all conversant in economics, but try learning to use words correctly. The political map is being used all over the world, in poly sci texts and among the educated. You are really lost in 19th century dogma and a discredited paradigm.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Q5tgbbTTuw&NR=1 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 1:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| if we elect anyone other than Ron Paul (or another libertarian), we are likely to see the demise of western democracy and liberty as we have known it |
Culinary question: How much sugar do the Paulistas put in their KoolAid? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
On Aug. 3, 2007, speaking at Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of the International School for Scholars, BO called for a US attack on Pakistan, more troops in Afghanistan, and unilateral attacks on Iran and Pakistan, and strengthening the US military and intelligence apparatus across the planet.
|
1. No he didn't call for a US attack against Pakistan. He said if they could target the location of OBL and he was in pakistan, they'd take him out. Big difference. As for Iran, huh? He did?? are you sure??
2. More troops in afghanistan would be a good thing.
In regards to #1, I'm not saying even that is the right thing to do, but please, let's keep things in perspective ok? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 5:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
1. No he didn't call for a US attack against Pakistan. He said if they could target the location of OBL and he was in pakistan, they'd take him out. Big difference. As for Iran, huh? He did?? are you sure?? |
Yah baby, Pakistan 
Actually, many have long known how, shortly before he managed to pull off the incredible series of 911 terror attacks, he was quietly visited by the CIA in a Dubai hosptial while receiving critical kidney treatment.
Too bad none of the "GOOD GUYS" thought to e.g. maybe launch a major rocket attack while Obama was chilling in the hospital bed, eh?
| bucheon bum wrote: |
2. More troops in afghanistan would be a good thing. |
Interesting you should express such an enlightened opinion. Come to think of it, if you're really that gung-ho & committed, why not put your $$$ where your mouth is, get up & go fight the good fight, noble crusader?
The Koreans are coming home as this is being typed. 
Moreover, NATO mouth-pieces are presently said to be ratcheting down the org's aggressive imperialist rhetorick.
Just in time for Christmas.
btw - Who the heck is BO? Sounds like another completely insane "NEW"-con war criminal  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
