How is austerity doing in Europe

[Graphix]

Tania, you said you read the Krugman piece. Here is his explanation of why he named it what he did:
"In fact, policy makers seem determined to perpetuate what I’ve taken to calling the Lesser Depression, the prolonged era of high unemployment that began with the Great Recession of 2007-2009 and continues to this day, more than two years after the recession supposedly ended."

From YOUR reference. dipshit. Not a recession, but "what he has taken to calling "the lesser depression." Nice try.

He calls it a Lesser Depression. Regardless, Krugman already acknowledges that the US economy (in fact, the global economy) is experiencing a depression. You should have tried reading the next sentence which says, "Let’s talk for a moment about why our economies are (still) so depressed." You can interpret his words anyway you'd like, but his words are very clear.

As far as why he named it the way he did is really irrelevant. You asked for someone who believes the economy is depressed and you got one. You couldn't possibly believe that an economist would believe that the economy is experiencing a depression, much less an noble laureate. Now that you've seen one, you're trying desperately to move to goal post.

As for your quote from Keynes, he was describing a general condition of the capitalistic economy. Business cycles and all that. But not the then current depression. And no, me girl, the condition at that time was nothing like today. Sorry.

If that is what you want to believe. I've read the book that paragraph is on page 249-250 and he is describing the conditions about the economy, more specifically, the Great Depression. It's on Chapter 18: The General Theory of Employment Re-Estated. If you haven't read the book, you really should before you start lying and making things up.

But the real problem with quoting Keynes is that you were looking for an economist who would say that we are currently in a depression. That was, of course, your statement. And, me girl, think about it for a bit. Keynes is and has been dead for some time. Now, it would be just a bit difficult for him to comment on today's economy. Do you suppose that is why he did not??

I wasn't using Keynes to show that we are in a depression. I used a quote to show how economist define a depression. They're all different, as the investopdia explanation suggest.

So, where is that economist that says we are in a depression, me girl. You seem to be failing. Keynes is dead, and could not have. and Krugman did not say it. Sorry. But in your vernacular, you loose. Though what it really means is that you are not able to get your dogma past me. Sorry. Anyone with a bit of economics knows that we are not in a depression. That is just really too stupid.

You spelled 'lose' incorrectly, so you are using my vernacular wrong. You can ignore all you'd like that an economist referred to this economic downturn as a depression, because it reveals that you don't know as much as you think. The fact is, Krugman calls this downturn as a depression. As far as Krugman is concerned, as late as April 5th, 2013, the Depression hasn't ended.

Depression, Not Ended

So, a third example of your ignorance and your denial is inherent. I don't know how many different ways I can prove you wrong, but there really is no point in going on with you any further. You're just too intellectually dishonest and you are moving the goal post too many times. Don't waste your time responding to me, but if you are going to respond anyway, out of pity of your intellectual deficiencies you can still have the last word. Otherwise, we're done here.

Goodnight.

LMAO!! Epic ending to an already dominating debate.

'Goodnight' lol.

 

[Graphix]

Tania, you said you read the Krugman piece. Here is his explanation of why he named it what he did:
"In fact, policy makers seem determined to perpetuate what I’ve taken to calling the Lesser Depression, the prolonged era of high unemployment that began with the Great Recession of 2007-2009 and continues to this day, more than two years after the recession supposedly ended."

From YOUR reference. dipshit. Not a recession, but "what he has taken to calling "the lesser depression." Nice try.

As for your quote from Keynes, he was describing a general condition of the capitalistic economy. Business cycles and all that. But not the then current depression. And no, me girl, the condition at that time was nothing like today. Sorry.

But the real problem with quoting Keynes is that you were looking for an economist who would say that we are currently in a depression. That was, of course, your statement. And, me girl, think about it for a bit. Keynes is and has been dead for some time. Now, it would be just a bit difficult for him to comment on today's economy. Do you suppose that is why he did not??
So, where is that economist that says we are in a depression, me girl. You seem to be failing. Keynes is dead, and could not have. and Krugman did not say it. Sorry. But in your vernacular, you loose. Though what it really means is that you are not able to get your dogma past me. Sorry. Anyone with a bit of economics knows that we are not in a depression. That is just really too stupid.

 

[Kimura]

If they committed actual crimes, then why aren't the already in prison? The fact is they have not broken any laws. All they've done is piss off commies like you by retaining their jobs and incomes.

If destruction of people's lives was the standard, then every member of Congress should be in prison. Congress is nothing more than an organized gang of criminals.

They've committed massive financial fraud and numerous SEC violations. The DOJ has admitted they don't want to prosecute. Holder basically said they're above the law if you read between the lines. I find it ironic you would call me a commie for suggesting we prosecute criminals and criminal enterprises.

Holder’s remarks on banks ‘too large’ to prosecute reignites controversy

Holder said he didn't want to prosecute banks. He wasn't talking about individuals. In fact, he even said it would be better to prosecute individuals. If that's the case, then were are the indictments? The fact is, he has no evidence to prosecute anyone with. You keep talking about fraud and FEC violations, but where's the beef? Who are the guilty parties? What crimes did they commit? You obviously can't name any or provide any specifics. That's because there are none.

What's ironic about calling you a commie? Every commie I've ever known thinks making a profit is a crime. Why wouldn't they want to prosecute bankers?

Making a profit isn't crime, but profiting through breaking the law is a crime.

They have plenty of evidence. Jaime Dimon basically admitted to fraud while testifying before Congress. They won't go after any these CEOs, whether for obvious securities fraud, money laundering, or LIBOR rigging. Most the convictions have been for smaller actors way down on the totem pole.

Here:

Money-Laundering Banks Still Get a Pass From U.S.

 

[Toro]

BTW Amazon, I covered my silver long.

 

[Toro]

They've committed massive financial fraud and numerous SEC violations. The DOJ has admitted they don't want to prosecute. Holder basically said they're above the law if you read between the lines. I find it ironic you would call me a commie for suggesting we prosecute criminals and criminal enterprises.

Holder’s remarks on banks ‘too large’ to prosecute reignites controversy

Holder said he didn't want to prosecute banks. He wasn't talking about individuals. In fact, he even said it would be better to prosecute individuals. If that's the case, then were are the indictments? The fact is, he has no evidence to prosecute anyone with. You keep talking about fraud and FEC violations, but where's the beef? Who are the guilty parties? What crimes did they commit? You obviously can't name any or provide any specifics. That's because there are none.

What's ironic about calling you a commie? Every commie I've ever known thinks making a profit is a crime. Why wouldn't they want to prosecute bankers?

Making a profit isn't crime, but profiting through breaking the law is a crime.

They have plenty of evidence. Jaime Dimon basically admitted to fraud while testifying before Congress. They won't go after any these CEOs, whether for obvious securities fraud, money laundering, or LIBOR rigging. Most the convictions have been for smaller actors way down on the totem pole.

Here:

Money-Laundering Banks Still Get a Pass From U.S.

They won't go after the CEOs because it's extremely difficult to prove culpability. The SEC has been going after SAC for years, and the only thing they've charged Cohen with is failing to supervise properly. Seriously, that's it? If that's all you can get Cohen with, how are you going to nail Jamie Dimon?

 

[AmazonTania]

BTW Amazon, I covered my silver long.

Wise choice. Big moves up in Gold, and ever bigger moves in silver. XAU index up 5% from Thursday and HUI index up 9% from Wednesday. And Gold stocks are up while the market is down and corporate earnings were down. Although, it was a pretty bad week for all financial markets, except for the precious metals market. I think this is going to signal more buying.

Bonds were down, the dollar was down and the stock market was down. Gold & Silver FTW!

 

[AmazonTania]

Fair enough. I just thought his statement made no sense at face value.

It's not the fact that it doesn't make sense. It's just funny to hear people say how Bernie Madoff has no credibility about a fraud which made him so notorious.

You have them in UK! Let me guess, a friend had a “great opportunity” to share with you.

I actually run into them in NY. They've said they've 'expanded' in the UK and they call it a global company. I was curious and decided to look at their business plan. Sounds really ridiculous. They're simply buying their own products to meet a quota. This one person I've met has a security system he doesn't need, but it helps him reach a quota.

I couldn't say no fast enough.

I meant the playing field, the pitch, we’re footballers make the magic happen. The referee being tantamount to a scorekeeper.

Oh...

Well….it’s fairly simple. Historically, we know what works. Investments in infrastructure, transportation, education, health care, R&D, nuclear power, alternative energy, etc.
I’m a proponent of the Job Guarantee to reach - or come as close as possible – to reaching full employment. We already have this idle capacity in the form of people on unemployment, etc.

We don't really need the government investing in most of those. Sure infrastructure and transportation are nice once you've completed the project and you're more productive as a nation. Productivity is really not the problem. Well, it is, but only because the country is so productive at inefficient task. You should be building more factories, not roads.

I deal with people at the ratings agencies all the time. I’ve had conversations with them on the phone and at conferences in the past. These are the same people that told us these mortgage-backed securities were AAA.

Do you also deal with Moody's and Fitch? I don't see why these NRSRO have credibility where S&P does not.

 

[Kimura]

Holder said he didn't want to prosecute banks. He wasn't talking about individuals. In fact, he even said it would be better to prosecute individuals. If that's the case, then were are the indictments? The fact is, he has no evidence to prosecute anyone with. You keep talking about fraud and FEC violations, but where's the beef? Who are the guilty parties? What crimes did they commit? You obviously can't name any or provide any specifics. That's because there are none.

What's ironic about calling you a commie? Every commie I've ever known thinks making a profit is a crime. Why wouldn't they want to prosecute bankers?

Making a profit isn't crime, but profiting through breaking the law is a crime.

They have plenty of evidence. Jaime Dimon basically admitted to fraud while testifying before Congress. They won't go after any these CEOs, whether for obvious securities fraud, money laundering, or LIBOR rigging. Most the convictions have been for smaller actors way down on the totem pole.

Here:

Money-Laundering Banks Still Get a Pass From U.S.

They won't go after the CEOs because it's extremely difficult to prove culpability. The SEC has been going after SAC for years, and the only thing they've charged Cohen with is failing to supervise properly. Seriously, that's it? If that's all you can get Cohen with, how are you going to nail Jamie Dimon?

It is, I totally agree. Wasn't the federal government trying to use RICO against SAC?

 

[AmazonTania]

Tania, you said you read the Krugman piece. Here is his explanation of why he named it what he did:
"In fact, policy makers seem determined to perpetuate what I’ve taken to calling the Lesser Depression, the prolonged era of high unemployment that began with the Great Recession of 2007-2009 and continues to this day, more than two years after the recession supposedly ended."

From YOUR reference. dipshit. Not a recession, but "what he has taken to calling "the lesser depression." Nice try.

As for your quote from Keynes, he was describing a general condition of the capitalistic economy. Business cycles and all that. But not the then current depression. And no, me girl, the condition at that time was nothing like today. Sorry.

But the real problem with quoting Keynes is that you were looking for an economist who would say that we are currently in a depression. That was, of course, your statement. And, me girl, think about it for a bit. Keynes is and has been dead for some time. Now, it would be just a bit difficult for him to comment on today's economy. Do you suppose that is why he did not??
So, where is that economist that says we are in a depression, me girl. You seem to be failing. Keynes is dead, and could not have. and Krugman did not say it. Sorry. But in your vernacular, you loose. Though what it really means is that you are not able to get your dogma past me. Sorry. Anyone with a bit of economics knows that we are not in a depression. That is just really too stupid.

Well, good to know some random newbies have gotten a full grasp of exactly what Rshermr does around here: Challenges another to prove something, then when proven wrong moves the goalpost and prays everyone else is to stupid to figure how what he has done.

 

[Toro]

Making a profit isn't crime, but profiting through breaking the law is a crime.

They have plenty of evidence. Jaime Dimon basically admitted to fraud while testifying before Congress. They won't go after any these CEOs, whether for obvious securities fraud, money laundering, or LIBOR rigging. Most the convictions have been for smaller actors way down on the totem pole.

Here:

Money-Laundering Banks Still Get a Pass From U.S.

They won't go after the CEOs because it's extremely difficult to prove culpability. The SEC has been going after SAC for years, and the only thing they've charged Cohen with is failing to supervise properly. Seriously, that's it? If that's all you can get Cohen with, how are you going to nail Jamie Dimon?

It is, I totally agree. Wasn't the federal government trying to use RICO against SAC?

I don't know.

 

[Rshermr]

Tania, you said you read the Krugman piece. Here is his explanation of why he named it what he did:
"In fact, policy makers seem determined to perpetuate what I’ve taken to calling the Lesser Depression, the prolonged era of high unemployment that began with the Great Recession of 2007-2009 and continues to this day, more than two years after the recession supposedly ended."

From YOUR reference. dipshit. Not a recession, but "what he has taken to calling "the lesser depression." Nice try.

As for your quote from Keynes, he was describing a general condition of the capitalistic economy. Business cycles and all that. But not the then current depression. And no, me girl, the condition at that time was nothing like today. Sorry.

But the real problem with quoting Keynes is that you were looking for an economist who would say that we are currently in a depression. That was, of course, your statement. And, me girl, think about it for a bit. Keynes is and has been dead for some time. Now, it would be just a bit difficult for him to comment on today's economy. Do you suppose that is why he did not??
So, where is that economist that says we are in a depression, me girl. You seem to be failing. Keynes is dead, and could not have. and Krugman did not say it. Sorry. But in your vernacular, you loose. Though what it really means is that you are not able to get your dogma past me. Sorry. Anyone with a bit of economics knows that we are not in a depression. That is just really too stupid.

Well, good to know some random newbies have gotten a full grasp of exactly what Rshermr does around here: Challenges another to prove something, then when proven wrong moves the goalpost and prays everyone else is to stupid to figure how what he has done.

Sorry, me girl I moved no goal post. You were wrong from the beginning. You were wrong in the center. And you were wrong in the end. Still waiting for you to find a single economist that says we are in a depression.

 

[Graphix]

The Third Depression

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: June 27, 2010

Recessions are common; depressions are rare. As far as I can tell, there were only two eras in economic history that were widely described as “depressions” at the time: the years of deflation and instability that followed the Panic of 1873 and the years of mass unemployment that followed the financial crisis of 1929-31.

Neither the Long Depression of the 19th century nor the Great Depression of the 20th was an era of nonstop decline — on the contrary, both included periods when the economy grew. But these episodes of improvement were never enough to undo the damage from the initial slump, and were followed by relapses.

We are now, I fear, in the early stages of a third depression. It will probably look more like the Long Depression than the much more severe Great Depression.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/28/opinion/28krugman.html?_r=0

 

[AmazonTania]

Thanks for being so thoughtful and wasting your time so I don't have to, but you really aren't getting anywhere. Rshermr can wait all he wants, either for a Revelation to emerge or to be struck with the painfully obvious, but the only worse than a fool is the person still willing to talk reason with the fool. But for your sake, don't try too hard. Debates with this person are usually like this:

Debating Rsherme In Under 5 Minutes:​

Note: All quotes are gathered from their original sources and are snipped for purposes of length only. Highlighted bold and red parts indicated for irony.

Being the economic expert that you are, and having a large staff of economists working for you, I should probably listen to the drivel. But of course, there is just you, and a few bat shit crazy con sources that you would quote. Or, I could listen to hundreds of economists who have actually been studying the subject. I think the choice is obvious.

But you do so with AGENDA, as do those agenda driven web sites. Which makes your posts of NO value. And which is why people with integrity bring forward articles from sites not agenda driven. And why economists opinions matter. And why my opinion, and yours, do not.

Perhaps, in your own words, if you can, maybe you would like to explain why you feel the economy is not experiencing a depression.

Now remember, me poor ignorant conservative, that a depression is a more serious downturn than a recession. And the latest recession ended in 2009. So, according to those that understand economics much better than you, we are not in as bad of shape as a recession requires. But go ahead. Oh, by the way those same economists say we never approached that level of downturn that a depression requires, EVER, except during the 1929 depression. But go ahead. You are at this point simply making a fool of yourself. And it should be interesting watching you try to prove we are in the second depression of our experience in the last 100 years..

You've already had plenty of economist professing and categorizing the current economic climate as a depression. You've even had two noble laureates who wrote a book about the current depression, and outlined how it should be handled.

If you weren't so closed-minded, you'd probably be able to understand this better...

Saying that there are plenty of economists saying that we just went through a depression is another of the really interesting statements. Lets see one. I can not find him or her. Find me a single impartial source. You know, like an economist not owned by the far right. Hell, even one of those is averse to making that accusation. You are the first I have seen trying that idea out. Good luck with that.

End This Depression Now! - Paul Krugman - Google Books

You lose. Have fun.

In that book, Krugman never tried to say the then current economic condition was a depression. The title is tongue in cheek. You should actually read it. You may actually learn something.

Paul Krugman: The Lesser Depression.

Paul Krugman: The Third Depression

Paul Krugman: We are now, I fear, in the early stages of a third depression

We are not now. And we have not been except in the great depression, me girl. No other ime in the past century. Sorry about that. Trying to make a depression because an economist names something a Lesser Depression. There is no such thing, me girl, as a lesser depression.

Still waiting for you to find a single economist that says we are in a depression.

Yeah, dealing with such an ignorant chronic case of self aware really takes it's toll. I especially love how one can explain to you how economist opinions matter, except for when they don't... LMAO.

 

[Rshermr]

So, though Tania can not find a single economist who says we are in a depression, she thought she had three. But then she gave up on one, because I suppose not enough people believed in seances. That would be, of course, JM Keynes. He never said we were in a depression today, probably because he had been dead a long, long time. Then, there is Krugman, who she normally does not like, but funny enough he used the word depression and THAT WAS ENOUGH. Oh, except he was calling the situation with high ue a "lesser depression". Not a depression. Totally different things. So, what is tania to do. Those two are just not passing the giggle test.
Why, another person posts a place where krugman said something about depression. So, what did he say. He said he FEAERED that me may be in the beginning stages of a third depression.
Now, Krugman, who likes to make a point, was careful. He did not say we were IN a depression. Just that he FEARED we might be in a start of one. So, that meant he feared raising ue, and decreasing gdp.
Now, did Tania mention that that quote from Krugman was from over 3 years ago?? In the worst of the great recession??? Why, NO, she forgot to mention that. So, we should look. Has gdp decreased???? Why NO!! IT HAS NOT!!! Has the unemployment rate gone up???? Why NO!! IT HAS NOT!!! Why, tania forgot to mention that the unemployment rate has gone DOWN from a very nasty 9.5% to under 7.4%. And GDP has gone to RECORD HIGHS.

But still, Tania is bound and determined to prove we are in a depression. Sad display of ignorance on her part. But it seems to be important for her to prove that she is the smart one, and all of those stupid economists are just wrong. But, the comedy is good.

 

[Graphix]

He said he FEAERED that me may be in the beginning stages of a third depression.
Now, Krugman, who likes to make a point, was careful. He did not say we were IN a depression. Just that he FEARED we might be in a start of one.

You're reading is very bad, dude. He didn't say might or may. He said 'we are not 'I fear' in. You're clearly making things up lmao.

We are now, I fear, in the early stages of a third depression

Now, did Tania mention that that quote from Krugman was from over 3 years ago?? In the worst of the great recession??? Why, NO, she forgot to mention that. So, we should look. Has gdp decreased???? Why NO!! IT HAS NOT!!! Has the unemployment rate gone up???? Why NO!! IT HAS NOT!!! Why, tania forgot to mention that the unemployment rate has gone DOWN from a very nasty 9.5% to under 7.4%. And GDP has gone to RECORD HIGHS.

Krugman explains that already, LMAO!

Neither the Long Depression of the 19th century nor the Great Depression of the 20th was an era of nonstop decline — on the contrary, both included periods when the economy grew. But these episodes of improvement were never enough to undo the damage from the initial slump, and were followed by relapses.

But still, Tania is bound and determined to prove we are in a depression. Sad display of ignorance on her part. But it seems to be important for her to prove that she is the smart one, and all of those stupid economists are just wrong. But, the comedy is good.

You should give it up already. You're embarrassing yourself. For your own sake. Lmao!

 

[AmazonTania]

No, I encourage him to keep going. If you give someone enough rope, they'll eventually hang themselves. My most favourite part of post was this:

Now, did Tania mention that that quote from Krugman was from over 3 years ago?? In the worst of the great recession??? Why, NO, she forgot to mention that. So, we should look. Has gdp decreased???? Why NO!! IT HAS NOT!!! Has the unemployment rate gone up???? Why NO!! IT HAS NOT!!! Why, tania forgot to mention that the unemployment rate has gone DOWN from a very nasty 9.5% to under 7.4%. And GDP has gone to RECORD HIGHS.

But still, Tania is bound and determined to prove we are in a depression.

So apparently you're not in a depression if GDP increases or if unemployment falls. Don't think I've ever heard anything so stupid from anyone before about this particular subject. Obviously we are dealing with someone who flunked Econ 101.

Because, you know, of course there was no Great Depression, because GDP grew:

And unemployment fell:

And within the first four years, GDP has gone to RECORD HIGHS:

So yes, I'm not kidding you, by Rshmer's own definition of what a depression entails, the Great Depression did not happen.

Someone needs to give Rshmrer a noble prize in economist. Of all the increasingly amount of inept individuals who have won this award every year, he truly deserves it. Or if this is not possible, someone should at least give him his own thread in the Flame Zone section of the board where everyone can record his economic illiteracy. Because it seems every week Rshmrer is revealing to himself how little he really knows.

 

[Graphix]

eshermr knows more about economics than noble prize economist Krugman lmao!

 

[Rshermr]

So, Amazon getting really desperate, says the following:

So apparently you're not in a depression if GDP increases or if unemployment falls. Don't think I've ever heard anything so stupid from anyone before about this particular subject. Obviously we are dealing with someone who flunked Econ 101.

Well, but then, yes,it was a pretty stupid statement by you. Because, me dear, I did not say any such thing. Now this is tough for a con tool to follow, but here goes. I am going to try to get you to understand what I said. Though it was pretty clear:

If at one point in the down economy, unemployment is say 9.5% and you are not in a depression, and it then goes, over a two or three year period, to 7.4%, then (now pay attention, because I know you are trying to ignore this) then the UE rate is BETTER. And if the first ue rate had indicated no depression was underway, then we were certainly not in depression at that later date when the ue rate had dropped. And dropped a goodly amount.
And, if gdp is down a fair amount, but no one is calling it a depression, then it could not be a depression when gdp has increased during that time, and increased to record levels.

"When Roosevelt took office in 1933, real GDP was more than 30% below its normal trend level. (For comparison, the U.S. economy is currently estimated to be between 5 and 10% below
trend.)"
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/events/2009/3/09 lessons/0309_lessons_romer

You see, me dishonest con tool, it is indeed possible to have a ue rate that goes from 3 to 25%, and a downturn in gnp that drops by over 30% of it.s trend line, and then have both of those indicators improve and still be in a depression. As it did during the great depression.

So, try as you can to change the subject, it is still the case that you can find not even a single economist who believes we are in a depression. So, apparently you have given that up, and are trying to misquote what I have said. Tacky, me poor con tool. Shows a complete lack of integrity.
You are getting really boreing. Trying to prove we are currently in a depression is stupid, me dear. Makes you look like a tool. And a fool.

 

[Oldstyle]

So, Amazon getting really desperate, says the following:

So apparently you're not in a depression if GDP increases or if unemployment falls. Don't think I've ever heard anything so stupid from anyone before about this particular subject. Obviously we are dealing with someone who flunked Econ 101.

Well, but then, yes,it was a pretty stupid statement by you. Because, me dear, I did not say any such thing. Now this is tough for a con tool to follow, but here goes. I am going to try to get you to understand what I said. Though it was pretty clear:

If at one point in the down economy, unemployment is say 9.5% and you are not in a depression, and it then goes, over a two or three year period, to 7.4%, then (now pay attention, because I know you are trying to ignore this) then the UE rate is BETTER. And if the first ue rate had indicated no depression was underway, then we were certainly not in depression at that later date when the ue rate had dropped. And dropped a goodly amount.
And, if gdp is down a fair amount, but no one is calling it a depression, then it could not be a depression when gdp has increased during that time, and increased to record levels.

"When Roosevelt took office in 1933, real GDP was more than 30% below its normal trend level. (For comparison, the U.S. economy is currently estimated to be between 5 and 10% below
trend.)"
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/events/2009/3/09 lessons/0309_lessons_romer

You see, me dishonest con tool, it is indeed possible to have a ue rate that goes from 3 to 25%, and a downturn in gnp that drops by over 30% of it.s trend line, and then have both of those indicators improve and still be in a depression. As it did during the great depression.

So, try as you can to change the subject, it is still the case that you can find not even a single economist who believes we are in a depression. So, apparently you have given that up, and are trying to misquote what I have said. Tacky, me poor con tool. Shows a complete lack of integrity.
You are getting really boreing. Trying to prove we are currently in a depression is stupid, me dear. Makes you look like a tool. And a fool.

And coming from one of the great tools on this board...that's saying something!!!

STILL pretending to know something about economics, Tommy? You never cease to amuse!

 

[Graphix]

now he's making his own rules about what a depression is. thinks you're only in a depression if GDP goes down and unemployment goes up! ROFLMAO! NOBLE PRIZE ECONOMIST EHSRMER!!!