Are we headed toward a depression?

[CARLHAYDEN]

It's not a pretty question, but I think it has to be asked at this point.

A depression, probably not. 

A lengthy and painful recession, probably.

A hyperactive presidency next year is likely to make the situation worse.

Lets hope that Congress can restrain the next president.

[CARLHAYDEN]

While some regulation is necessary, it seems to me that the decline in competition, often fostered by regulators is a bigger problem.

What we need is more vigorous enforcement of existing anti-trust laws, rather than having regulators waiving such laws

[CARLHAYDEN]

Here's a couple of snippets of news in response to the rejection of the extortion, er, bailout:

NEW YORK (AP) -- Oil prices tumbled more than $10 a barrel Monday, dropping back below $100 as a U.S. financial bailout failed to win legislative approval

Times Online--The euro also fell heavily against the dollar

[CARLHAYDEN]

My comment had nothing to do with a critique of laissez-faire economics. Far from it.

You're arguments about the people having to endure 'a rough couple of months' ... for the sake of the greater good ... in the long term ... has been used by practically every Socialist in the 20th century. Hugo Chavez is making that argument in Venezuela as I'm typing this. I'd be damned if I see an economic rightist legitimize that specious type of argument here.

I will agree that legislative "fixing" is a deep problem (I thought Sarbanes-Oxley put an end to all of this /sarcasm). But it requires a special type of obstinance not to recognize that something within our capitalist economy is not working, and that the failure of private business to recitfy it will only mean that, eventually, the people will vote themselves an alternative that neither of us would like.

I think there's a communication gap.  I'm not talking about Americans sacrificing their financial security for the sake of the country or the wealthy.  What I want is to allow the economy, their economy, to correct itself right now so they don't have to foot the bill time and again in the future.  It's a big stretch to claim that what I'm proposing is the same as what Chavez is doing.  He's shoving the government into the economy for his own good, I want to pull it out for everyone's good.  It's not like I'm suggesting that we force anything on anyone, I'm suggesting we stop forcing things on them.

A couple of questions for you Fezzy:

1.)  Surely you're not alledging that all financial institutions are in bad shape, or are you?

2.)  Should businesses that screw up be allowed to fail?

Please, you sound like a liberal who wants inflict massive government on people "for everyone's good."

[CARLHAYDEN]

A couple of questions for you Fezzy:

1.)  Surely you're not alledging that all financial institutions are in bad shape, or are you?

2.)  Should businesses that screw up be allowed to fail?

Please, you sound like a liberal who wants inflict massive government on people "for everyone's good."

I really can't comprehend how my statements could be construed as socialist, but evidently using the words "for everyone's good" was a poor word choice.  By that I meant that it is for the better of the economy, which is in everyone's interest.

Specifically:
1. I am saying they are in bad shape as a whole because of their recent comfort embracing the spend, spend, spend habits of the federal government and American people.  They all need to take a big step backwards and resecure their assets and restore confidence in sources of liquidity.

2. If a business is headed for failure, they should not be protected from the wolves.  Let their competitors in to rip them apart and force them into either oblivion or more careful business policies.  With the government's stagnation, we are seeing a very interesting thing happen in the economy; It's taking care of itself.  Companies are buying each other, helping each other, tripping each other, everything.  The less the government says and does, the better.  Right now no one in the government or the media has anything to say and the market is going back up.  The market crashed yesterday because the government promised $700 billion in extra liquidity that never showed up.  Without that promise, it wouldn't have crashed.

My first point was that not all financial instutions are in poor shape, which you seem to have acknowledged in your response 2.

So, the idea that we can "blame society," for poor decisions by individual businesses is merely a poor way of evading responsibility.

You are absolutely correct that the government leave the situation alone.  Their intervention is like a "physician" of three hundred years ago who would "bleed" patients as part of their "treatment." 

[CARLHAYDEN]

Oh, and contrary to the "chicken littles," the sky isn't falling:

U.S. stocks bounce back after Monday's plunge
Indexes positioned for steep declines in crisis-riddled month of September
By Kate Gibson, MarketWatch

Last update: 4:35 p.m. EDT Sept. 30, 2008Comments: 1694NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- U.S. stock indexes on Tuesday blasted back from the prior session's historic rout, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average chalking up its third-biggest point gain on optimism that a rescue plan would make a comeback in coming days on Capitol Hill.
"Maybe the sky isn't falling," said Frederic Ruffy, options strategist at WhatsTrading.com.