Is the presumption behind this question correct, or another way of asking the question, under what definition of growth is the presumption correct?

For instance, some economic indicators haven’t grown, like real wages for lower income earners. And in the several decades after WWII, wasn’t there comparably better rates of growth, although the financial sector was regulated and controlled differently?

The presumption doesn’t seem obviously right to me, at all.

That post missed what I’d actually said. I’d not said anger was in any way “wrong.” What I said was unhelpful was exactly this: “rants that we’ve often seen from people trying to demonize whomever they disagree with.”

Being passionate and demonizing those who disagree with us are two entirely different things. I wrote specifically about the latter.

I understand that feeling strong anger can make one more likely to post. Exactly how does being angry help the thought processes of the angry people?

(and by the way, nice round belly)

…as for the rants, it seems to me that a better way to categorize ‘these’ posts would be passionate anger over extremely important issues…and as such, i wonder what percentage of the people participating on this blog believe that passionate anger is not valid or useful in the discussions going on in this forum?

Some people are just more passionate than others.

Comments that I consider “not helpful” are mainly those rants that we’ve often seen from people trying to demonize whomever they disagree with.

This is a cool change.

What are you assuming about how the $4 trillion or so will be worked out and what that impact will or won’t be?

I’m not arguing; I’d just like to understand your thinking on this.

Some excellent points.

Question: Are you distinguishing between “US banks” and the small number of very large banks? I don’t see a forced choice between limiting the size of banks and helping most banks in our system work.

Am I missing something?

Look around. People have produced and bought too much stuff. Lots and lots of stuff. 5 or 10 years of production and demand pulled forward by EZ-credit and cheap oil. And then… burp.

Most businesses and banks projected that accelerated increase in demand and productively way into the future. They financed expansions, built more houses. All this securitized and backed by bonds with leveraged CDO’s on top. Mal-investment and over-production squared.

So now what are we going to do? Force families to buy more TV’s and cars? Maybe extra financial products? Tulips?

It’s over. O-V-E-R. The consumer has crashed. There is nothing to inflate. We have to wait a long, long while for a massive oversupply in housing, durable goods and container-ships full of junk to decay.

While we’re all enjoying the fruits of that future production, businesses have realized if there is no demand then there is no need to produce. Now businesses overcorrect, if only to survive. Now we unwind 5-10 years of over-employment, and then some.

Sure this is an over-generalization. People still need to eat, be clothed, and be merry under a roof. We still need production, we still need services and businesses to provide them.

But for most things, there is only deflation and liquidation as far as the eye can see.

That is, deflation and liquidation of your assets, not the elites’.

Derivatives, out sourcing creating developing market growth, and other leverage must have something to do with the disconnect. And, maybe this disconnect is here to stay. But maybe it is unsustainable.

I am afraid all of the thievery that has taken place in the “official” games (not the Olympics, the game of picking and chosing which bank will or wont survive to receive the free money from AIG and TARP “backstops” ) that our country will suffer from this almost 200Billion dollars to AIG and 400plus billion that has been given to Citi. This is a heavy burden–the country was bitching about the 700billion dollar stimulus but an equivalent amount has been passed out to save failed entities– but even a bankrupt organization might be saved with 600billion dollars of free money plus the ability to borrow at a half of a percent and lend at 5-30% when you consider commercial lending and credit card lending.

Are AIG and Citi national treasures worth 600billion dollars? It is such a sad story.

But this time is different right? Yes and No. Of course 2009 is a different time in history. But a fascinating paper by the economics department at Harvard, reveals that a significant number of factors are the same now as compared to other financial crises that have occurred for 800 years!
http://mast-economy.blogspot.com/2009/03/remember-1979-is-this-time-different.html

Given the assumption that this recent bear is no different, have a look at the charts for the past 12 bear markets:
http://mast-economy.blogspot.com/2009/02/bull-market-move-swift-and-steep.html

This current move will continue to be swift and steep leaving many in the dust.