The Greatest Recession
I pulled this image from the National Inflation Association- Charts
This is a wild chart. I super imposed my best guestimate fitting curve. As you can see, i tried to be conservative and deal with the bumps along the way. It's most certainly not perfect but it will do to demonstrate the ideas.
That red area is the area of the recession. There are a few notable things about this chart. The decline we've had in the recreated M3 over the last year has never happened in the last 40 years. Given the charts I've seen, this has never happened in the last century.
In order to be as prosperous as we were before the recession we need about $2.5 trillion more dollars in the system RIGHT NOW. Not some bailout for the banks or tax refund bull crap. The banks need to be loaning that amount within the next few months for us to really recover the way economists (at least were) talking about.
The dollars where the green line ends and the black line hitting 2010, is about $13.7 and $16.2 trillion dollars. The difference is about $2.5 trillion.
This is about the same amount the government has spent in budget deficits over the last 2 years. This is significant because as you can see that $2.5 trillion didn't move us up to where we "should" be. It shows either 1) just how ineffective government spending is in replacing economic output; or 2) The recreated M3 would be at $11.2 trillion if we are to believe that government spending was 100% effective at producing economic growth. I'd like to thank both the Federal Government and the banking industry for this monster.
My sense is that excessive government spending doesn't produce real sustainable economic growth. This includes the huge budget for the military. Funding technology in the military is important but only when it has real civilian use. Research, yada, yada. Agreed. Though it most certainly could and probably should be sliced in half if not more. That would be value being directly injected into the economy through lower inflation and lower taxes in the long run. This is getting at least closer to a more sustainable future.
By January 2011, this estimate shows the M3 needing to be ~$18 trillion. Obama just submitted his budget. It's enormous. The deficit is estimated to be $1.6 trillion. $18 trillion minus $16.2 is $1.8 trillion. That's damn close.... and that won't do a damn thing except cause more inflation. They need to get that value some how. (Stealing it from you is socially acceptable, no?)
Our single party system, the Corporate Republicrats, have no idea what they are doing to secure America. Removing our freedoms "for security" is giving the terrorists exactly what they want. As soon as we started the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan the "enemy" shipped out. Better to live to fight another day. The got us bogged down and now have the Military Industrial Complex stuck in a growing feedback loop which is sucking down our national value. More military is not the correct answer... A smarter, leaner, more efficient, and productive military is. Until our "leaders" realize that terrorism is the application of "We will fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" we won't get anywhere and we won't be all that much more secure either. If they take a page from our playbook, which a smart terrorist would do, they will attack US HERE... not our military there. The former is much scarier. Duh. I'm not going to get into how terrorism is likely a false flag operation especially given all the shady circumstances.
Obama! Yo! Fix it! Also, can we put Bush on trial as a War Criminal? Congress didn't even declare war. They put a face on terrorism and then funded its destruction without actually consenting to explicitly to kill it. Then the Republicans declare the Democrats as being soft? That's a load of bull crap. If you want something to happen, do it the way the Constitution defines it be done. It's not legitimate if you don't. You can't make claims that anybody is "soft on terror" because they believe in the constitution. In fact, making these claim only makes you "soft on democracy."
Ah yes, how is this for communist/facsist?
If you don't follow the corporate party line (on either side), you are ostracized and made not important by the corporate mega-phone media.
Wait a minute... Isn't this reminiscent of Communist Russia?