It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
An economic depression is essentially a severe recession. When I say severe, I mean not in measurement but rather in length. A recession that last 3-5 years can be considered either a severe recession or a depression .. if it last over 5 years it is then a depression, and if it last 10 or more like it did in 1929, it is a Great Depression.
The worst recession in the last 60 years was from November 1973 to March 1975, where real GDP fell by 4.9 percent.
Question 1. Do you stand by the official government reports?
Question 2. Do you believe that if the Federal numbers are tampered, that it excludes the ability to measure economic viability by the scholarly definition if the factual information is in fact fictional?
Question 3: Do you believe the Inflation Numbers Truth?
Question 4: Truth, do you deny the dollar falling, and world governments moving away from the Dollar Peg?
Question 5: Will the US economy stand after major world exporters switch from Dollars to other currencies?
 Wartime inflation, when the gold standard had been suspended, raised prices and inspired fears that gold stocks were inadequate to provide backing for enlarged money supplies at the new, higher price level. This was one reason that convertible currencies, such as the dollar and pound, were used as gold substitutes. The war weakened Britain, left Germany with massive reparations payments, and split the Austro-Hungarian Empire into many countries. These countries, plus Germany, depended on foreign loans (in convertible currencies) to pay for their imports. The arrangement was unstable because any withdrawal of short-term loans would force the borrowing countries to retrench, which could cripple world trade.
No one really has a solid definition, but the most consistent thing I could find was that a depression occurs when the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) falls over 10% over a given period of time paired with a recession lasting a long time. GDP gives us a viable reference.
5: a period of low general economic activity marked especially by rising levels of unemployment
How can you explain the fact that the US has gone 70 years without suffering another "Great Depression"?
Responses should be made within 24 hours. One single 24 hour extension can be used by a member by requesting it in the thread. If 24 hours passes without response, you may proceed with your next post. Members who exceed 24 hours run the risk of losing their post, but may still post up until their opponent has submitted their next response.
Why is it so improbable that America will not face a depression in the next TWO decades?
A period of economic distress in multiple sectors of the economy, effecting the financial institutions, industrial sectors, and service industries. Heightened by inflation, the restrictions or regulations on credit expansion, bankruptcy and financial insolvency within commerce and financial institutions, coupled with mounting unemployment.
Question 2: Does that sound like an economic depression?
Question 3: Does that sound like 1929?
Question 4: Does that sound like 2008?
Our GDP is imaginary. Our Government is the top employer int he country.. Drive throughout he country side and god damnit all you will see is podunk town after town with a walmart, McDonald's, a used car lot and a seemingly perfect running economy.
Inflation, a key mark of economic hard times, is a misconstrued calculation.. the Gov does not include gas prices in inflation, of which most people spend several hundred a month on gas.. they do not include food prices, of which many people spend hundred on every month .. They only include products like TV's, cars, boats, clothes .. imported garbage..
I guess for the same reason that it is not improbable that the US WON'T suffer another great depression.
Nope. Sounds like a recession and even if one could go to the extreme of calling it a depression, it most certainly would not be considered another "Great" depression. The US faced the same crisis in '73 with nearly the same problems. Remember the Savings and Loans scandals of the early '80's? Both of those events amounted to a recession.
No. Not at all. Why? Because there was no fiscal policy to deal with any of that. Now there is.
Sure. Just like it sounds like 1984, or 1991, or 1998, or 2001 or any number of other dates that DID NOT produce a Depression, let alone a "Great" depression.
Ladies and Gentlemen, my opponent up until this point has said a lot of very scary things about the US economy, and yet he has used no sources nor has he verified any of his information. Statements like:
Imaginary GDP? Hardly. I have driven through America numerous times and I have seen a great deal more than just a string of podunk towns.
I don't think that it is accurate that those numbers are not included. Anything to back that up with?
I would never post false information.
CPI is the main measure of Inflation, the numbers you hear when the Fed tells you it's only 3-4%.. It is the index that measures the price of goods purchased by households, excluding commodities like Oil, and Food.
The index is usually computed monthly, or quarterly in some countries, as a weighted average of sub-indices for different components of consumer expenditure, such as food, housing, clothing, each of which is in turn a weighted average of sub-sub-indices.
You simply fail to understand that the only difference between a recession and a depression is merely severity of the situation. A steep recession with higher then normal (for a recession) unemployment and other catastrophes in the economy, simply equate to being a Depression. Unless YOU can give me a better definition as to what a depression is, we will simply have to rely on the outcome I have deduced from the understanding of what a recession is.
Which begs the question, with a retreating industrial sector, and unemployment rising.. but oil and food doubling every other year.. if you take all expenses related to energy uses, and food .. why, I do believe we would have several straight quarters of negative GDP growth! Officially putting us smack int he middle of a recession. With the worst yet to come!
Rockpuck vs TruthWithin
This was a most interesting debate as it very clearly outlined two very distinct forms of debate. While Rockpuck posted almost completely without sources and relied on his own statements to stand as fact, TruthWithin relied on the more common method of reference and source.
Rockpuck had an uphill battle in trying to nail down a debate topic that refers to a particular time limit for proof; in this case 20 years. All TruthWithin had to do was show a depression was not going to happen in 20 years and he did a good job of that.
Rockoucks information would have carried far more weight if he had referenced it and had not actually asked the reader to look at policies for themselves instead of providing them and Rockpuck makes the statement that it “pains him” that his opponent does not believe him. That is the essence of the debate; to refute your opponent’s information. He was not very convincing in this area. Rockpuck posted some very interesting reading, yet expected the reader and his opponent to simply take all he said for fact. This is not a sound principle in a debate.
This combined with TruthWithin’s sourcing and referencing, complete picture of the world economy in regards to the United States and his understanding of economics as a whole; gives this debate handily to TruthWithin.
TruthWithin by a large margin
Rockpuck vs TruthWithin:
Both opening statements were stimulating, but the debate was more interesting;
Rockpuck regularly challenged TruthWithin, answering questions in much detail. Both used histroical details to back up their arguments but I feel TruthWithin let himself down by keeping saying "tell me what a depression is". This was a major failure I feel.
TruthWithin stuck to that one argument while Rockpuck intesified the debate by expanding and paying attention to the agrument. Although the rhetoric of TruthWithin was exceptional.
In the end, both were equal in sourcing data. But, I shall give an overal point score for both figthers out of 10.
Due to Rockpuck paying attention to the argument much more, I feel he just won it. It was a hard debate to call.
I have to say that TruthWithin kept me on my seat with the information presented. He could have lectured me on any topic and would have had my full attention.
His core strengths:
- Ability to keep me in tuned with his information
- Way with words
- Use of sources, data, and personal experince
I really liked when he stated this:
There is an old joke among economists that states:
A recession is when your neighbor loses his job.
A depression is when you lose your job.
It kind of took my mind of statistics and gave me a sense of openness to the debater. Overall, he had me hooked to listen for more, he conveyed his message to me in a fashion in which I can relate to and not that of a boring professor.
Now for Rockpuck, he come off as a knowledgeable teacher, one that I know knew what he was talking about. This is the person I would want to listen to, to hear about a situation on a scholarly level.
His core strengths:
- Convey his message in a scholarly manner
- Use of statistics and data
- Not letting his personal views get in the way of his info
Overall, he debated well and this would be a good match for a college-level crowd.
In conclusion: I choose TruthWithIn because I feel he can relay his message to all audiences and not just one core group.